![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I think it is time to post a new skyline picture to the page, going threw this process is totally unnecessary however, What do the fellow users think?, this is what I wanna know. JWillems ( talk) 01:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
So keep the existing image or replace with:
The existing (22 Feb, 2009) main photo for this article is quite ugly, to be honest. A "reasonable quality" photograph of Albuquerque's skyline would alone drastically improve the quality of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.194.183 ( talk • contribs) 19:45, 22 February 2009
I totally agree! the photo is freaking ugly as hell! we gotta change Albuquerque's picture to a more pleasant one!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyer070 ( talk • contribs) 05:48, 26 February 2009
Yes, use the aerial photo already on the page...the first photo people see is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.188.218 ( talk) 06:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I archived all the discussions from 2004 through 2008 here. All discussions appear to be closed, and the last edit to the archived portions of the page was on 27 December 2008.
Several fields in the infobox are subject to undesirable changes of various sorts, and we have developed a consensus on this page that proposed changes should be discussed here before being implemented (the affected fields are marked with comments stating this). I have summarized these discussions below and linked to the full discussion in the archive. If I have left out anything else that needs to be carried over, please also note that below. Thanks. -- Uncia ( talk) 19:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
If you want to change, replace, or add any images on the article page, please discuss your proposed image here before making the change. There is an ongoing problem where copyright-violation images are placed on this page, especially for the infobox image. When the violation is discovered we then have to manually repair the page. The consensus is that all image changes must be discussed here first. See the archived discussion here. Thanks. -- Uncia ( talk) 19:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
If you want to change, replace, or add the city nickname or the city motto in the infobox at the top right of the page, please discuss your proposed change here before making it. These fields have been the subject of a lot of vandalism. It is unlikely that any new mottoes or nicknames have been invented that are not already listed here, so please give reliable sources for your proposed change. The consensus is that all nickname and motto changes must be discussed here first. See the archived discussion here. Thanks. -- Uncia ( talk) 19:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Are there any serious objections to adding Duke City as a nickname? Cheers, ClovisPt ( talk) 22:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Certainly shouldn't be. Ohmiwik ( talk) 05:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The vast majority of the Hispanic locals know it as it "Burquè", and hispanics make up a large chunk of the city's population. kehkou ( talk) 00:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.22.28 ( talk)
IP editor 86.121.9.59 ( talk) has been putting garbled data on Albuquerque's racial mix under Demographics. I have fixed this up (twice) and asked him to comment here before changing it again. -- Uncia ( talk) 14:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
86.121.9.59 ( talk) left this response on my talk page:
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)New editor Skydeepblue ( talk · contribs) has reinstated (without explanation) the changes made by 86.121.9.59 ( talk). I have reverted these and asked Skydeepblue ( talk · contribs) to discuss here before changing again. -- Uncia ( talk) 14:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Al-Barquq (البرقوق) means "Plum" in Arabic. A common and widely appreciated fruit in Moorish Spain. That's pretty obviously the origin of the Duke's Moorish name, not Father of Cork. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackbrown ( talk • contribs) 13:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Possibly... but your one fact - that the Moors in Spain ate plums - is trumped by: the spelling of the word Albuquerque itself (no "r" after the "q" in Al-Barquq), the cork industry in the Alburquerque region of Spain (vice plum orchards), the white oak on the seal of the Spanish city of Alburquerque (vice a plum tree), and the possible Latin root. Finally, and most importantly, the "cork" explanation is the widely accepted Spanish etymology, available in Spanish on the web, if you read same. CharleyHart ( talk) 16:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I replaced the older image becuase the new image gives a better identity of The City of Albuquerque, 6 pictures to discribe our city. I even added the captions for the pictures. More cities are adding a "Montage" to their infoboxes, So I believe we too can have a nice infobox photo Montage. I believe the current image doesnt even show the whole downtown area or anything else besides our two largest buildings. ABQStyle ( talk) 00:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The Census Bureau estimated the City of Albuquerque's 2008 population at 521,999 persons, as indicated in reference #1 to the article. In the article this figure is being rounded to 522,000 repeatedly, regularly, and without external sourcing. That alteration is inconsistent with wikipedia policy. I've reset all references to the 2008 city population to the Census Bureau's estimate of 521,999, as that is the only external source referenced in the article. 164.64.74.44 ( talk) 14:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that in the righthand info box, the link to the current mayor, richard berry, leads to a singer of the same name. This should probably be un-linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.197.214 ( talk) 23:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
...and 25 references fixed. Not a problem, Synchronism. — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 07:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Ranchos de Alburquerque, the historical source of the city's name, includes a false cognate - 'rancho'. Although often translated today as "ranch", the Spanish word 'rancho' historically meant either "farm huts" (Spanish), or "camp" (Mexican-Spanish).CarlitosCorazon 18:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv ( talk) 18:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Albuquerque, New Mexico → Albuquerque — Relisting as this was not listed on WP:RM until today. Note that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States is relevant to this proposal. Ucucha 15:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Lots of major cities don't have the state or country after their name in the article title. Other than Alburquerque, Spain, there is no other city called Albuquerque. "Albuquerque" even redirects here. - NerdyScienceDude :) ( ✉ click to talk • my edits) 16:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Huh. Wasn't aware of this discussion. Well, it's not clear why Wikipedia needs to slavishly follow the AP Stylebook in this instance; I don't think we give the AP Stylebook primacy in other areas. It's fairly clear that the city in New Mexico is the primary topic for "Albuquerque", and that's what people will most often want to read about when they type in "Albuquerque". This should be about what's best for the reader. Jayjg (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
It looks like there have been some issues with the infobox image. Because of that, I decided to come here first. Here are some things to clarify:
With that out of the way, I would like to propose File:Albuquerque Montage.jpg as our infobox image. It contains seven images that describe Albuquerque. One of the images in the montage is the currently-existing infobox image. NerdyScienceDude :) ( ✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 16:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it's time we clean up this section and figure out what should be removed. NerdyScienceDude :) ( ✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 01:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Is this still correct?
Maurreen ( talk) 07:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm wondering if this should be deleted:
On March 23, 2007, the city's then-mayor, Martin Chavez, announced his plan to brand the city "the Q". Despite various opinions as to what the city's nickname should be, Mayor Chavez continued to push his initiative.
Soy de Burque, "I am from Burque", is one response to the mayor's vision of a "hip" reincarnation".[12] This group of Albuquerque residents feels it is unnecessary to spend taxpayer money to hire marketing companies to brand their city with a more palatable nickname, recognizing the city already has a brand and nickname. This selling of a city’s cultural identity to marketing and advertising firms to brand and sell has been dubbed by Soy de Burque as culture branding. One central issue to their response is the branding campaign was never voted on, but rather declared by Mayor Chavez,[13] and outsourced to marketing and advertising firms.
That happened about three years ago, and I'm not sure it has had any lasting impact. I've been in the city since July, and the only time I've ever heard about this is in the article.
If it is going to stay, can someone update it? Maurreen ( talk) 15:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I deleted this, because it was tagged for almost two years as needing a citation.
Many citizens fear Albuquerque may be growing beyond its means. Most residents want to avoid increasing crime and traffic, worsening air quality, stressing water supplies, and encroaching on the natural environment. Many believe these are the negative consequences of persistent sprawl development patterns. citation needed
Maurreen ( talk) 15:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I removed the following paragraph:
The so-called "Golden Heart of Albuquerque," Gold Street (in actuality Gold Avenue SE), is a neighborhood resting nearly center of the city in the Southeast quadrant, noted for its proud, unique, and colorful inhabitants of urban Albuquerque. With a university (UNM), community college (CNM), three sport venues (Isotopes Park, University Stadium, and The Pit), two major hospitals (University of New Mexico Hospital and Presbyterian Hospital), mixed commercial district ("Brick Light District"), and the famed "Frontier Restaurant" nearby, so-called Gold Street and surrounding environs are a hub of activity, distinctly urban and distinctly New Mexican.
The paragraph is promotional in tone and consists almost entirely of unverifiable OR. I can find no reliable reference to the neighborhood described being called "Gold Street." There is no Gold Street Neighborhood Association [3]. The area in question, as described in the Gold Street article (likely created by the same user), is almost entirely within the boundaries claimed by the Silver Hill Neighborhood Association. This area is certainly not referred to as the "golden heart of Albuquerque" in any reliable sources. Camerafiend ( talk) 23:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
So if there's no neighborhood association, the neighborhood doesn't exist?
Everyone who lives on that section of gold avenue calls it "gold street". People have been calling it "Gold Street" for years. Do nicknames for locations and their descriptions as bieng distinct from the areas around them have to be written up in a newspaper before we can post it on wikipedia? The Silver Hill Historic people don't do any community activities at all on Gold Street, Gold Street is effectively forgotten by them. Everything in that paragraph is accurate.
Please don't edit things you have no business editing. Thank you. Burqueno ( talk) 17:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please change the population figures for Albuquerque city proper to 528,497 based on the 2009 census? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.102.45 ( talk) 03:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm looking for more comments on a proposed a merger of Hyatt Regency Albuquerque into Albuquerque Plaza. If you have an opinion on this, please drop by the discussion. Camerafiend ( talk) 04:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
This is the city where one of the world's largest companies was founded and nobody who wrote the article even saw fit to mention this? Fail! Gmackematix ( talk) 02:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
New Mexico municipal elections are non-partisan, so the party affiliations, if any, of the Mayor and City Councilors is irrelevant. I have removed these from the infobox. Community-banned user PoliticianTexas ( talk · contribs) often uses his sockpuppets to put these in. -- 75.211.44.137 ( talk) 20:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted two edits by 98.23.200.16 that deleted multiple paragraphs of the article. Based on a review of other recent edits by the same user I do not suspect him/her of vandalism in making these deletions.
The amount of material deleted was extensive, and may have been "unbalanced and unorganized" as was noted in the explanatory comment. If so, there are several more appropriate remedies than deletion, including: (1) modifying the text to provide better balance and organization; (2) creating a new wikipedia entry if it is deemed more appropriate for the material to be in one or more subarticles; or (3) targeting specific elements of the text as candidates for deletion and justifying those deletions.
I don't have any specific opinions on the value to the article of the items deleted by 98.23.200.16 but wanted to provide a forum for discussing the merits of that content before proceeding with wholesale deletions. 164.64.74.12 ( talk) 15:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The Arts and Culture section in the article is a wreck! The style of the section is tacky and gives most of the listed space just advertising. How can we fix this section so we look like other city pages, and not as a article that lists every cultural and arts event? JHarrelson ( talk) 21:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The point has been made here before: New Mexico municipal elections are non-partisan. The Mayor and Council members do not run on a party ticket. Albuquerque city elections have no primaries. Thus, Democrats may end up competing against other Democrats and Republicans may end up competing against Republicans. The political parties have no legal role in city elections in Albuquerque. Thus, it is no more relevant to cite a party affiliation for an elected city official than it is to do so for anyone else mentioned in the article. The article might as well note the religious preferences of the officials--that would be just as improper. The reasoning that the political information must stay "because this an encyclopedia" is not persuasive. Indeed, that statement cuts the other way. Citing the political affiliations of legally nonpartisan officeholders may mislead readers into believing that the elections are in fact partisan. HCManson ( talk) 21:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
This dispute about identifying the alleged political affiliation of Albuquerque elected officials is, I must say, an odd thing. I do not understand the motivations behind those who are insistent that the political affiliation information appear there. I do not agree that it should be listed for the following reasons: (1) it is not relevant since the officials do not serve as "Democrats" or "Republicans" in Albuquerque city government; (2) it is contrary to convention with respect to scholarly and encyclopedic renditions of non-partisan offices; (3) it is mis-leading, as some would believe that the political parties have formal roles in Albuquerque elections, when in fact they do not. (4) The information as presented is un-sourced. Now it may be that "everybody knows," for example, that Mayor Berry is a Republican, because he served as a Republican member of the state legislature. But that ceases to have relevance once he is elected to a nonpartisan office. Now the argument could be made that his political background is politically relevant because it may influence his approach to his duties as Mayor. But that is not for encyclopedic speculation in an infobox which is supposedly factual and neutral. It may also be, for example, that "everybody knows" that Councilor X is a Catholic; Councilor Y is a Jew; and Councilor Z is a Buddhist. It would be improper in an article factbox to note these religious affiliations. Again, the same arguments can be made: the religious affiliations are "fact"; they may influence a councilor's point of view. Nonetheless, by convention and consensus, we don't put (RC), (J), or (Bud) behind the names of holders of secular offices in articles about the secular government. It well may be that mention of these affiliations has a place in individual biographies of elected officials--that would be perfectly reasonable.
I doubt that very many Wikipedia articles about U.S. cities with nonpartisan municipal elections identify the presumed parties of the elected officials. Indeed, the articles on some of the biggest cities in the country with nonpartisan elections do not identify the presumed affiliations of elected office holders. See the articles on Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Jose.
Although I do not comprehend the motives of those who want to keep driving against convention and consensus, I would like to see this editing firefight come to a end. To that purpose I would propose that, in lieu of the listing of presumed party affiliations of the mayor and council, there be added to the Government section language to the following effect: "Albuquerque's city elections are nonpartisan under its charter and state law. However, the current mayor is a former Republican state legislator and the Council is nearly evenly divided between members who have in the past identified with or supported one or the other major political party." If the list of individual affiliations can be sourced, so can this proposed statement. HCManson ( talk) 04:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
City of Albuquerque | |
---|---|
Founded | 1706 as: Alburquerque |
Incorporated | 1891 as: Albuquerque |
The infobox currently includes the following:
Although I understand editors' desire to emphasize the fact that the first r was dropped during the 185 years between Alburquerque's founding and Albuquerque's incorporation, highlighting that letter presumes that the reader will not be able to see the difference otherwise. That violates the very wise recommendation to avoid instructing the reader, making presumptions about the reader's cognitive ability, and pointing out facts that the editor fears the reader will not notice without that assistance. MOS:NOTED is very good advice, and it is being violated here.
Although using special text formatting to call attention to that letter is not exactly the same as writing "note the extra r in the original spelling" (which is the kind of edit MOS:NOTED specifically advises against), the intention is exactly the same: we are calling the reader's attention to something we think he or she should notice instead of simply presenting information and allowing the reader to evaluate the information without instructions from us on how to do it.
Originally that extra r was in bold and italics, and then about a year ago an editor changed it to an underscore. The underscore is slightly less intrusive, but its purpose is still instructional and presumptuous and therefore should be removed. Also, the underscore adds potential confusion as to what it means. When I first saw it I thought it had some kind of linguistic significance, like a diacritic, possibly indicating that that r was pronounced differently from the subsequent r, like the tilde over the Spanish ñ.
So not only does the special text format make inappropriate presumptions about the reader's cognitive abilities, but it also can introduce confusion that would not be there if the word were simply spelled without trying misguidedly to instruct the reader in its significance. The infobox should be brought in line with the article's text, which adequately addresses the spelling change without insulting or confusing the reader.
For these two very good reasons, I am going to edit the infobox so that it appears as indicated here, removing the underscore from the first r in Alburquerque.
City of Albuquerque | |
---|---|
Founded | 1706 (as Alburquerque) |
Incorporated | 1891 (as Albuquerque) |
I am also going to remove the unnecessary italics from the "as: ..." phrases and the unnecessary colon after "as". Placing both "as ..." phrases in parentheses seems appropriate and will show the two different spellings without trying to manipulate the reader into noticing something we think he or she should notice.-- Jim10701 ( talk) 18:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Is there an error? I'm wondering why it says 70% white, then it lists percentages of other races, then it says 48% or so hispanics/latinos. 67.41.103.130 ( talk) 15:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Shari M.
There is an IP user, 71.210.206.199, who insists on labeling city council members & the mayor with political party labels. A reference from the official ABQ city site states, and I quote, "City elections are non-partisan and have no primaries. By law, General Municipal Elections are held in odd-numbered years on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in October." [4] This matter has been discussed on this page before with the consensus that, indeed, the elections are non-partisan and hence, as far as ABQ is concerned, the individuals have no party affiliation. -- Tim Sabin ( talk) 18:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The climate box has two separate lines, Precipitation and Snowfall, as if the two are completely distinct. They are not. Precipitation includes both rainfall and snowfall; a Precipitation" line should have totals that are at least as much as the snowfall line. The text makes the same false distinction. I submit that "Precipitation" should be changed to "Rainfall" in these cases. -- Tim Sabin ( talk) 03:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
No, keep the line as "precipitation". Not all the precipitation falls as snow and that is why the totals are not as much as the snowfall amounts. If you put rainfall, the values would be misleading. Also, there is no data for rainfall and it is best to go with what the source indicates. There is rainfall because precipitation is not the same value as snowfall value but there is no offical data on rainfall. All major cities in the wikipedia article in the USA that record snow every winter uses precipitation and snowfall values. Ssbbplayer ( talk) 01:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
In the first sentence under the Hydrology section, the parenthetical aside in the Rio Grande reference - "(river water diverted from the Colorado River basin through the San Juan-Chama Project[28])" - should be struck. While the Rio is certainly supplemented by the San Juan diversion due to water rights wrangling, that diversion is a very small part of the Rio's hydrology itself and adds little or nothing to the ABQ hydrology discussion. It certainly belongs in a discussion of the Rio Grande, but not here. In fact it is a misleading digression. Someone spent time on the reference, so I wanted to make my case before striking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlamastra ( talk • contribs) 13:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if this has been brought up before, but because Rio Rancho is a separate city, although it might be alright to mention Intel's employment in text, I do not think that it should be listed as one of the top ten employers in Albuquerque...because it isn't. Intel is a large employer in Rio Rancho. I suppose one could write that the list includes the top 10 employers in the Albuquerque Metropolitan Statitical Area, but then one needs to look at all the businesses in Rio Rancho as well. Rio Rancho Public Schools may bump some other group out of the category of largest employers in the Albuquerque MSA. Taram ( talk) 21:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The MOS recommends against sandwiching text between an image and an infobox ( MOS:IMAGELOCATION). Where doing so is necessary to keep the image with the appropriate text, as here, reducing the image may be needed to avoid choking the text. The image in the Etymology section was enlarged to regular size and moved to the top of the article recently. Between the bottom of the Index, two section headings, an image, and an infobox, the beginning of the article looked very cluttered, and the text was squeezed down to where only three and four words fit on some lines, even on a large monitor. I reduced the image to decrease the choking and moved it down a paragraph so the article starts with text. This keeps the image with the appropriate text while appearing less cluttered. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 02:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
While I personally agree that The Frontier is a culturally important part of ABQ's history, I'm reluctant to list it in the article without a WP:SECONDARY source saying so. Saying that a place is culturally important, without explaining why it's important (with a source), is just WP:PEACOCK. Additionally, without solid sources these sections always seem to degrade into bland lists of every restaurant in a city with no indication of which ones are significant, and which ones paid a publicist for some WP:COVERT advertising. That may be an extreme example, but Blake's Lotaburger had some suspicious activity in that direction in the past, so I don't think this is a minor issue that should be taken lightly. Grayfell ( talk) 03:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
New Mexican cuisine is extremely important throughout New Mexico, and the same holds true for Albuquerque. Since this is the largest city in the state, this food plays an important part of the city's culture. In much the same way that Tokyo's cuisine is internationally acclaimed. Several restaurants have become iconic staples in the city, since Albuquerque was a city on several historic trade routes; Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway, U.S. Route 66, Interstate 40, and Interstate 25. In fact one of the oldest buildings in the state, is a restaurant. There are several universally accepted restaurants in Albuquerque, according the articles I'll supply; Casa de Ruiz, Los Poblanos, Cecilia's Cafe, Sadie's, El Pinto, El Modelo, Frontier Restaurant, Garduño's, Little Anita's, Mac's La Sierra, The Candy Lady, Blake's Lotaburger, and so many more. My prior list was accurate, but here's the sourcing. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. I can find more sources, but Albuquerque's cuisine is important to the history of the city, and not in a small way. Smile Lee ( talk) 06:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The Ethnicity percentages don't add up
69.7% Caucasian 4.6% Multiracial 4.6% American Indian 3.3% Black 2.6% Asian 15.1% Other 46.7% Hispanic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.93.39 ( talk) 23:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I think it is time to post a new skyline picture to the page, going threw this process is totally unnecessary however, What do the fellow users think?, this is what I wanna know. JWillems ( talk) 01:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
So keep the existing image or replace with:
The existing (22 Feb, 2009) main photo for this article is quite ugly, to be honest. A "reasonable quality" photograph of Albuquerque's skyline would alone drastically improve the quality of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.194.183 ( talk • contribs) 19:45, 22 February 2009
I totally agree! the photo is freaking ugly as hell! we gotta change Albuquerque's picture to a more pleasant one!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyer070 ( talk • contribs) 05:48, 26 February 2009
Yes, use the aerial photo already on the page...the first photo people see is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.188.218 ( talk) 06:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I archived all the discussions from 2004 through 2008 here. All discussions appear to be closed, and the last edit to the archived portions of the page was on 27 December 2008.
Several fields in the infobox are subject to undesirable changes of various sorts, and we have developed a consensus on this page that proposed changes should be discussed here before being implemented (the affected fields are marked with comments stating this). I have summarized these discussions below and linked to the full discussion in the archive. If I have left out anything else that needs to be carried over, please also note that below. Thanks. -- Uncia ( talk) 19:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
If you want to change, replace, or add any images on the article page, please discuss your proposed image here before making the change. There is an ongoing problem where copyright-violation images are placed on this page, especially for the infobox image. When the violation is discovered we then have to manually repair the page. The consensus is that all image changes must be discussed here first. See the archived discussion here. Thanks. -- Uncia ( talk) 19:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
If you want to change, replace, or add the city nickname or the city motto in the infobox at the top right of the page, please discuss your proposed change here before making it. These fields have been the subject of a lot of vandalism. It is unlikely that any new mottoes or nicknames have been invented that are not already listed here, so please give reliable sources for your proposed change. The consensus is that all nickname and motto changes must be discussed here first. See the archived discussion here. Thanks. -- Uncia ( talk) 19:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Are there any serious objections to adding Duke City as a nickname? Cheers, ClovisPt ( talk) 22:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Certainly shouldn't be. Ohmiwik ( talk) 05:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The vast majority of the Hispanic locals know it as it "Burquè", and hispanics make up a large chunk of the city's population. kehkou ( talk) 00:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.22.28 ( talk)
IP editor 86.121.9.59 ( talk) has been putting garbled data on Albuquerque's racial mix under Demographics. I have fixed this up (twice) and asked him to comment here before changing it again. -- Uncia ( talk) 14:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
86.121.9.59 ( talk) left this response on my talk page:
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)New editor Skydeepblue ( talk · contribs) has reinstated (without explanation) the changes made by 86.121.9.59 ( talk). I have reverted these and asked Skydeepblue ( talk · contribs) to discuss here before changing again. -- Uncia ( talk) 14:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Al-Barquq (البرقوق) means "Plum" in Arabic. A common and widely appreciated fruit in Moorish Spain. That's pretty obviously the origin of the Duke's Moorish name, not Father of Cork. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackbrown ( talk • contribs) 13:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Possibly... but your one fact - that the Moors in Spain ate plums - is trumped by: the spelling of the word Albuquerque itself (no "r" after the "q" in Al-Barquq), the cork industry in the Alburquerque region of Spain (vice plum orchards), the white oak on the seal of the Spanish city of Alburquerque (vice a plum tree), and the possible Latin root. Finally, and most importantly, the "cork" explanation is the widely accepted Spanish etymology, available in Spanish on the web, if you read same. CharleyHart ( talk) 16:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I replaced the older image becuase the new image gives a better identity of The City of Albuquerque, 6 pictures to discribe our city. I even added the captions for the pictures. More cities are adding a "Montage" to their infoboxes, So I believe we too can have a nice infobox photo Montage. I believe the current image doesnt even show the whole downtown area or anything else besides our two largest buildings. ABQStyle ( talk) 00:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The Census Bureau estimated the City of Albuquerque's 2008 population at 521,999 persons, as indicated in reference #1 to the article. In the article this figure is being rounded to 522,000 repeatedly, regularly, and without external sourcing. That alteration is inconsistent with wikipedia policy. I've reset all references to the 2008 city population to the Census Bureau's estimate of 521,999, as that is the only external source referenced in the article. 164.64.74.44 ( talk) 14:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that in the righthand info box, the link to the current mayor, richard berry, leads to a singer of the same name. This should probably be un-linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.197.214 ( talk) 23:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
...and 25 references fixed. Not a problem, Synchronism. — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 07:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Ranchos de Alburquerque, the historical source of the city's name, includes a false cognate - 'rancho'. Although often translated today as "ranch", the Spanish word 'rancho' historically meant either "farm huts" (Spanish), or "camp" (Mexican-Spanish).CarlitosCorazon 18:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv ( talk) 18:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Albuquerque, New Mexico → Albuquerque — Relisting as this was not listed on WP:RM until today. Note that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States is relevant to this proposal. Ucucha 15:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Lots of major cities don't have the state or country after their name in the article title. Other than Alburquerque, Spain, there is no other city called Albuquerque. "Albuquerque" even redirects here. - NerdyScienceDude :) ( ✉ click to talk • my edits) 16:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Huh. Wasn't aware of this discussion. Well, it's not clear why Wikipedia needs to slavishly follow the AP Stylebook in this instance; I don't think we give the AP Stylebook primacy in other areas. It's fairly clear that the city in New Mexico is the primary topic for "Albuquerque", and that's what people will most often want to read about when they type in "Albuquerque". This should be about what's best for the reader. Jayjg (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
It looks like there have been some issues with the infobox image. Because of that, I decided to come here first. Here are some things to clarify:
With that out of the way, I would like to propose File:Albuquerque Montage.jpg as our infobox image. It contains seven images that describe Albuquerque. One of the images in the montage is the currently-existing infobox image. NerdyScienceDude :) ( ✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 16:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it's time we clean up this section and figure out what should be removed. NerdyScienceDude :) ( ✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 01:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Is this still correct?
Maurreen ( talk) 07:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm wondering if this should be deleted:
On March 23, 2007, the city's then-mayor, Martin Chavez, announced his plan to brand the city "the Q". Despite various opinions as to what the city's nickname should be, Mayor Chavez continued to push his initiative.
Soy de Burque, "I am from Burque", is one response to the mayor's vision of a "hip" reincarnation".[12] This group of Albuquerque residents feels it is unnecessary to spend taxpayer money to hire marketing companies to brand their city with a more palatable nickname, recognizing the city already has a brand and nickname. This selling of a city’s cultural identity to marketing and advertising firms to brand and sell has been dubbed by Soy de Burque as culture branding. One central issue to their response is the branding campaign was never voted on, but rather declared by Mayor Chavez,[13] and outsourced to marketing and advertising firms.
That happened about three years ago, and I'm not sure it has had any lasting impact. I've been in the city since July, and the only time I've ever heard about this is in the article.
If it is going to stay, can someone update it? Maurreen ( talk) 15:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I deleted this, because it was tagged for almost two years as needing a citation.
Many citizens fear Albuquerque may be growing beyond its means. Most residents want to avoid increasing crime and traffic, worsening air quality, stressing water supplies, and encroaching on the natural environment. Many believe these are the negative consequences of persistent sprawl development patterns. citation needed
Maurreen ( talk) 15:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I removed the following paragraph:
The so-called "Golden Heart of Albuquerque," Gold Street (in actuality Gold Avenue SE), is a neighborhood resting nearly center of the city in the Southeast quadrant, noted for its proud, unique, and colorful inhabitants of urban Albuquerque. With a university (UNM), community college (CNM), three sport venues (Isotopes Park, University Stadium, and The Pit), two major hospitals (University of New Mexico Hospital and Presbyterian Hospital), mixed commercial district ("Brick Light District"), and the famed "Frontier Restaurant" nearby, so-called Gold Street and surrounding environs are a hub of activity, distinctly urban and distinctly New Mexican.
The paragraph is promotional in tone and consists almost entirely of unverifiable OR. I can find no reliable reference to the neighborhood described being called "Gold Street." There is no Gold Street Neighborhood Association [3]. The area in question, as described in the Gold Street article (likely created by the same user), is almost entirely within the boundaries claimed by the Silver Hill Neighborhood Association. This area is certainly not referred to as the "golden heart of Albuquerque" in any reliable sources. Camerafiend ( talk) 23:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
So if there's no neighborhood association, the neighborhood doesn't exist?
Everyone who lives on that section of gold avenue calls it "gold street". People have been calling it "Gold Street" for years. Do nicknames for locations and their descriptions as bieng distinct from the areas around them have to be written up in a newspaper before we can post it on wikipedia? The Silver Hill Historic people don't do any community activities at all on Gold Street, Gold Street is effectively forgotten by them. Everything in that paragraph is accurate.
Please don't edit things you have no business editing. Thank you. Burqueno ( talk) 17:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please change the population figures for Albuquerque city proper to 528,497 based on the 2009 census? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.102.45 ( talk) 03:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm looking for more comments on a proposed a merger of Hyatt Regency Albuquerque into Albuquerque Plaza. If you have an opinion on this, please drop by the discussion. Camerafiend ( talk) 04:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
This is the city where one of the world's largest companies was founded and nobody who wrote the article even saw fit to mention this? Fail! Gmackematix ( talk) 02:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
New Mexico municipal elections are non-partisan, so the party affiliations, if any, of the Mayor and City Councilors is irrelevant. I have removed these from the infobox. Community-banned user PoliticianTexas ( talk · contribs) often uses his sockpuppets to put these in. -- 75.211.44.137 ( talk) 20:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted two edits by 98.23.200.16 that deleted multiple paragraphs of the article. Based on a review of other recent edits by the same user I do not suspect him/her of vandalism in making these deletions.
The amount of material deleted was extensive, and may have been "unbalanced and unorganized" as was noted in the explanatory comment. If so, there are several more appropriate remedies than deletion, including: (1) modifying the text to provide better balance and organization; (2) creating a new wikipedia entry if it is deemed more appropriate for the material to be in one or more subarticles; or (3) targeting specific elements of the text as candidates for deletion and justifying those deletions.
I don't have any specific opinions on the value to the article of the items deleted by 98.23.200.16 but wanted to provide a forum for discussing the merits of that content before proceeding with wholesale deletions. 164.64.74.12 ( talk) 15:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The Arts and Culture section in the article is a wreck! The style of the section is tacky and gives most of the listed space just advertising. How can we fix this section so we look like other city pages, and not as a article that lists every cultural and arts event? JHarrelson ( talk) 21:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The point has been made here before: New Mexico municipal elections are non-partisan. The Mayor and Council members do not run on a party ticket. Albuquerque city elections have no primaries. Thus, Democrats may end up competing against other Democrats and Republicans may end up competing against Republicans. The political parties have no legal role in city elections in Albuquerque. Thus, it is no more relevant to cite a party affiliation for an elected city official than it is to do so for anyone else mentioned in the article. The article might as well note the religious preferences of the officials--that would be just as improper. The reasoning that the political information must stay "because this an encyclopedia" is not persuasive. Indeed, that statement cuts the other way. Citing the political affiliations of legally nonpartisan officeholders may mislead readers into believing that the elections are in fact partisan. HCManson ( talk) 21:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
This dispute about identifying the alleged political affiliation of Albuquerque elected officials is, I must say, an odd thing. I do not understand the motivations behind those who are insistent that the political affiliation information appear there. I do not agree that it should be listed for the following reasons: (1) it is not relevant since the officials do not serve as "Democrats" or "Republicans" in Albuquerque city government; (2) it is contrary to convention with respect to scholarly and encyclopedic renditions of non-partisan offices; (3) it is mis-leading, as some would believe that the political parties have formal roles in Albuquerque elections, when in fact they do not. (4) The information as presented is un-sourced. Now it may be that "everybody knows," for example, that Mayor Berry is a Republican, because he served as a Republican member of the state legislature. But that ceases to have relevance once he is elected to a nonpartisan office. Now the argument could be made that his political background is politically relevant because it may influence his approach to his duties as Mayor. But that is not for encyclopedic speculation in an infobox which is supposedly factual and neutral. It may also be, for example, that "everybody knows" that Councilor X is a Catholic; Councilor Y is a Jew; and Councilor Z is a Buddhist. It would be improper in an article factbox to note these religious affiliations. Again, the same arguments can be made: the religious affiliations are "fact"; they may influence a councilor's point of view. Nonetheless, by convention and consensus, we don't put (RC), (J), or (Bud) behind the names of holders of secular offices in articles about the secular government. It well may be that mention of these affiliations has a place in individual biographies of elected officials--that would be perfectly reasonable.
I doubt that very many Wikipedia articles about U.S. cities with nonpartisan municipal elections identify the presumed parties of the elected officials. Indeed, the articles on some of the biggest cities in the country with nonpartisan elections do not identify the presumed affiliations of elected office holders. See the articles on Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Jose.
Although I do not comprehend the motives of those who want to keep driving against convention and consensus, I would like to see this editing firefight come to a end. To that purpose I would propose that, in lieu of the listing of presumed party affiliations of the mayor and council, there be added to the Government section language to the following effect: "Albuquerque's city elections are nonpartisan under its charter and state law. However, the current mayor is a former Republican state legislator and the Council is nearly evenly divided between members who have in the past identified with or supported one or the other major political party." If the list of individual affiliations can be sourced, so can this proposed statement. HCManson ( talk) 04:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
City of Albuquerque | |
---|---|
Founded | 1706 as: Alburquerque |
Incorporated | 1891 as: Albuquerque |
The infobox currently includes the following:
Although I understand editors' desire to emphasize the fact that the first r was dropped during the 185 years between Alburquerque's founding and Albuquerque's incorporation, highlighting that letter presumes that the reader will not be able to see the difference otherwise. That violates the very wise recommendation to avoid instructing the reader, making presumptions about the reader's cognitive ability, and pointing out facts that the editor fears the reader will not notice without that assistance. MOS:NOTED is very good advice, and it is being violated here.
Although using special text formatting to call attention to that letter is not exactly the same as writing "note the extra r in the original spelling" (which is the kind of edit MOS:NOTED specifically advises against), the intention is exactly the same: we are calling the reader's attention to something we think he or she should notice instead of simply presenting information and allowing the reader to evaluate the information without instructions from us on how to do it.
Originally that extra r was in bold and italics, and then about a year ago an editor changed it to an underscore. The underscore is slightly less intrusive, but its purpose is still instructional and presumptuous and therefore should be removed. Also, the underscore adds potential confusion as to what it means. When I first saw it I thought it had some kind of linguistic significance, like a diacritic, possibly indicating that that r was pronounced differently from the subsequent r, like the tilde over the Spanish ñ.
So not only does the special text format make inappropriate presumptions about the reader's cognitive abilities, but it also can introduce confusion that would not be there if the word were simply spelled without trying misguidedly to instruct the reader in its significance. The infobox should be brought in line with the article's text, which adequately addresses the spelling change without insulting or confusing the reader.
For these two very good reasons, I am going to edit the infobox so that it appears as indicated here, removing the underscore from the first r in Alburquerque.
City of Albuquerque | |
---|---|
Founded | 1706 (as Alburquerque) |
Incorporated | 1891 (as Albuquerque) |
I am also going to remove the unnecessary italics from the "as: ..." phrases and the unnecessary colon after "as". Placing both "as ..." phrases in parentheses seems appropriate and will show the two different spellings without trying to manipulate the reader into noticing something we think he or she should notice.-- Jim10701 ( talk) 18:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Is there an error? I'm wondering why it says 70% white, then it lists percentages of other races, then it says 48% or so hispanics/latinos. 67.41.103.130 ( talk) 15:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Shari M.
There is an IP user, 71.210.206.199, who insists on labeling city council members & the mayor with political party labels. A reference from the official ABQ city site states, and I quote, "City elections are non-partisan and have no primaries. By law, General Municipal Elections are held in odd-numbered years on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in October." [4] This matter has been discussed on this page before with the consensus that, indeed, the elections are non-partisan and hence, as far as ABQ is concerned, the individuals have no party affiliation. -- Tim Sabin ( talk) 18:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The climate box has two separate lines, Precipitation and Snowfall, as if the two are completely distinct. They are not. Precipitation includes both rainfall and snowfall; a Precipitation" line should have totals that are at least as much as the snowfall line. The text makes the same false distinction. I submit that "Precipitation" should be changed to "Rainfall" in these cases. -- Tim Sabin ( talk) 03:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
No, keep the line as "precipitation". Not all the precipitation falls as snow and that is why the totals are not as much as the snowfall amounts. If you put rainfall, the values would be misleading. Also, there is no data for rainfall and it is best to go with what the source indicates. There is rainfall because precipitation is not the same value as snowfall value but there is no offical data on rainfall. All major cities in the wikipedia article in the USA that record snow every winter uses precipitation and snowfall values. Ssbbplayer ( talk) 01:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
In the first sentence under the Hydrology section, the parenthetical aside in the Rio Grande reference - "(river water diverted from the Colorado River basin through the San Juan-Chama Project[28])" - should be struck. While the Rio is certainly supplemented by the San Juan diversion due to water rights wrangling, that diversion is a very small part of the Rio's hydrology itself and adds little or nothing to the ABQ hydrology discussion. It certainly belongs in a discussion of the Rio Grande, but not here. In fact it is a misleading digression. Someone spent time on the reference, so I wanted to make my case before striking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlamastra ( talk • contribs) 13:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if this has been brought up before, but because Rio Rancho is a separate city, although it might be alright to mention Intel's employment in text, I do not think that it should be listed as one of the top ten employers in Albuquerque...because it isn't. Intel is a large employer in Rio Rancho. I suppose one could write that the list includes the top 10 employers in the Albuquerque Metropolitan Statitical Area, but then one needs to look at all the businesses in Rio Rancho as well. Rio Rancho Public Schools may bump some other group out of the category of largest employers in the Albuquerque MSA. Taram ( talk) 21:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The MOS recommends against sandwiching text between an image and an infobox ( MOS:IMAGELOCATION). Where doing so is necessary to keep the image with the appropriate text, as here, reducing the image may be needed to avoid choking the text. The image in the Etymology section was enlarged to regular size and moved to the top of the article recently. Between the bottom of the Index, two section headings, an image, and an infobox, the beginning of the article looked very cluttered, and the text was squeezed down to where only three and four words fit on some lines, even on a large monitor. I reduced the image to decrease the choking and moved it down a paragraph so the article starts with text. This keeps the image with the appropriate text while appearing less cluttered. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 02:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
While I personally agree that The Frontier is a culturally important part of ABQ's history, I'm reluctant to list it in the article without a WP:SECONDARY source saying so. Saying that a place is culturally important, without explaining why it's important (with a source), is just WP:PEACOCK. Additionally, without solid sources these sections always seem to degrade into bland lists of every restaurant in a city with no indication of which ones are significant, and which ones paid a publicist for some WP:COVERT advertising. That may be an extreme example, but Blake's Lotaburger had some suspicious activity in that direction in the past, so I don't think this is a minor issue that should be taken lightly. Grayfell ( talk) 03:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
New Mexican cuisine is extremely important throughout New Mexico, and the same holds true for Albuquerque. Since this is the largest city in the state, this food plays an important part of the city's culture. In much the same way that Tokyo's cuisine is internationally acclaimed. Several restaurants have become iconic staples in the city, since Albuquerque was a city on several historic trade routes; Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway, U.S. Route 66, Interstate 40, and Interstate 25. In fact one of the oldest buildings in the state, is a restaurant. There are several universally accepted restaurants in Albuquerque, according the articles I'll supply; Casa de Ruiz, Los Poblanos, Cecilia's Cafe, Sadie's, El Pinto, El Modelo, Frontier Restaurant, Garduño's, Little Anita's, Mac's La Sierra, The Candy Lady, Blake's Lotaburger, and so many more. My prior list was accurate, but here's the sourcing. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. I can find more sources, but Albuquerque's cuisine is important to the history of the city, and not in a small way. Smile Lee ( talk) 06:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The Ethnicity percentages don't add up
69.7% Caucasian 4.6% Multiracial 4.6% American Indian 3.3% Black 2.6% Asian 15.1% Other 46.7% Hispanic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.93.39 ( talk) 23:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |