Talk:Colorado/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Demographics: "Race"

The Census Bureau's site shows Colorado as having the following makeup:

74.5% White non-Hispanic 17.1% Hispanic 3.8% Black 2.2% Asian 1.0% American Indian 2.8% Two or more races

Note how this adds up to 101.4%.

Often Hispanics are counted in a second demographic, such as White or Black. I've never heard an explanation of this, but this is a common disclaimer on race figures. --patton1138 13:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

C Club (Atheletic Letter Clubs)

Unlike most high school athletic letter clubs, the varsity athletes of the high schools are awarded a "C" for Colorado, and they belong to the "C Club" of each high school, when they letter in a sport, rather than the initial of the school. This is not the case at every high school. At Thompson Valley High School in Loveland, Colorado, letters are awarded with the school initials "TV", and in the school colors--black and gold.

I don't understand this; I think it requires too high a level of cultural knowledge. (This isn't a criticism of the recent edits of the anonymous editor-- the problem existed beforehand.) What does it mean to "award letters"? Is there a Wikipedia page about this, and could it be linked? What's the normal practice that Colorado deviates from? Marnanel 22:35, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

It sounds strange. I've never heard of such a thing. We got C's, but that was because we were Fort Collins High School (at least, we all thought so). I saw lots of high school letter jackets while competing in events and never saw a "C" that didn't go with a high school that actually began with the letter C (or at least I assumed so). They were certainly plenty of counterexamples to the claim made in the article. I would like to hear from the editor who contributed this about the source of this information. -- Decumanus | Talk 22:49, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

But what does it actually mean to "award letters"? They make you a present of letters to sew on a jacket as a recognition of sporting achievement? Marnanel 01:12, May 5, 2004 (UTC) (non-American)

Yes. It's cloth letter (or combination of letters), usually in block capital form, about 6 inches tall, awarded for season-long participation in a sport or other activity, such as music, drama or forensic speaking (at least where I went to high school). It doesn't imply exceptional achievement in most cases, but just regular participation. To receive such a letter is to "letter" in the activity. One might say, for example, "I lettered in football my junior year, and lettered twice in cross country, during my junior and senior years." Letters are then often sewn on "letter jackets", which is usually a light-weight cloth jacket. The color combination of the jacket and the letter are the school colors. Up through the 1960s, if you got a letter, you were "letterman", but I never heard this word used in the 1980s when I was in high school (it might still be used elsewhere inthe country). The verb is still used. If you repeatedly letter, you usally get metallic pins to add to an existing letter, rather than receiving an additional cloth letter. Letter jackets are still extrememly popular in American high schools. It's a big part of Americana. -- Decumanus | Talk 01:24, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh, neat-- thanks for the explanation. I wonder whether anyone's made a page about it yet! Marnanel 01:36, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Yes. It's at Letterman, and isn't very long. Wyvern11:12, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I suggest deleting that portion of the article. It doesn't seem encyclopedic enough in relation to Colorado as a state to include on this page. And it is just kind of thrown in a misc. section. Any objections? --MattWright (talk) 22:50, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's incorrect. I don't remember any such thing; the only odd "C" practice I know of is using "CU" not for "Colorado University" as might be expected, but for University of Colorado. No objection. Doovinator 17:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Origins of Name?

The article says that the work "Colorado" comes from "Reddish" in Spanish. I always thought it meant (more broadly) "colorful place" and from my limited knowledge of spanish (which I admit could be written on the back of a cigarette packet!) I would still think this.

I believe you are correct, but the information that it comes from red or reddish is generally held. Fred Bauder 19:14, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, colorado is an adjective in spanish meaning "colorful" or "colored". I think this change should be made to the article

It is indeed commonly held that it means "reddish", which should probably be mentioned along with proper translation. Doovinator 17:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am a Spaniard and I want to say that "colorado" only means "red" (in some regions it is said "rojo", and in other regions it is said "colorado"), and "coloreado" means "colored".

References for Origin of Name

It appears to me that in Spanish, this word means "colored". However, in all references I can find for the meaning of the state name, it suggests "reddish color".

Translations:

• Yahoo/Houghton Mifflin gives the definition 1. colored; 2. reddish
• Babelfish also says the word translates to "colored"

References for State Name:

• Colorado Department of Personnel and Administration has a section on their "Colorado State Archives Symbols & Emblems" page listing many things about the name "Colorado", one of which is that it stands for "colored red".
• MSN Encarta says "reddish colored".

In light of this, I would suggest keeping the definition as-is ("reddish color") until someone can find an authoritative reference better than the above that suggests otherwise. --MattWright (talk) 02:16, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Update, I would actually suggest changing it to "reddish colored" until a better reference is found. All translations directly translate colorado into "colored", rather than "color", with the Yahoo/Houghton Mifflin one actually supplying both reddish and colored as definitions. --MattWright (talk) 03:22, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Most often, when a speaker of Spanish says "colorado" they mean the second definition of the Royal Academy of Spain which states: 2. adj. Que por naturaleza o arte tiene color más o menos rojo. And anyone who has seen the earth in that area knows it is a reddish color. Although, "colorado" can mean with color, we often use the word "colorido" for something with color. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.147.146.233 (talk • contribs) .

Demographics

Apparently one-half of one percent of Coloradans are transgendered? This must be the case if the population is "50.4% male and 49.1% female" as stated here! Rlquall 01:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Formatting weirdness

So, this page's formating is really messed up. Pictures are not aligning where they are supposed to be, the editing section tools are in the wrong place, and frankly it looks awful. I tried messing with it somewhat, but I am not sure if I am making it any better. For a while the whole article had doubles of each section, so I got rid of that but there are still some problems. Please fix it if you know how and use this talk section to tell us how its going. Vertigo700 19:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I moved the list of towns with population less than 10,000 to avoid the image overlap. Is there anything else that you're seeing that's a problem? -- Rick Block (talk) 17:19, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Check out Law and Government, it appears that the formatting from the previous section is attached to Law and Government. At one point another sections formatting link was there as well. I am not sure if anyone else is seeing it, and it certainly looks better now, but I wonder if we can do something about that. I'm stumped. Vertigo700 03:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Notable high schools

Cherry Creek High School and Kent Country Day School are in fact notable. Cherry Creek is a suburban school which offers an excellent academic education, Kent is a private school attended by the children of the elite, such as they are (Colorado has little old money and better neighborhoods have good public schools). The notion that every high school would demand or deserve an entry is a straw man. Fred Bauder 03:33, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree extensively with putting "notable" high schools on the Colorado page. 1st of all, it will create a lot of broken links to no pages (Kent doesnt have a page). Secondly, what makes them notable? Why only rich suburban schools? East High School (Denver) in Denver has probably the most famous alums Pam Grier, Don Cheadle, Judy Collins, etc. West High School (Denver) is notable for the start of the chicano rights movement Crusade for Justice. Certainly, Columbine High School is notable. The point being, many schools have something notable about them. Does that mean they really say anything about Colorado? I doubt anyone would define Colorado through its high schools, or even really care about them unless you graduated from there, or your kids go there. Vertigo700 15:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. At risk of having my arguments on this subject being denounced as a "straw man," I totally agree and think the section should be removed right away before more and more people start adding HSs making it even harder to remove without a blow up. If anyone, other than those who have already weighed in, think it should stay please let us know within the next 24 hours. After that, I think it should just be removed before it causes any more problems.Gator1 15:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree on removal of "notable high schools". Second Vertigo's arguments and add that other state articles I looked at (like California and New York) don't have similar sections. Seems more appropriate for individual city pages. --MattWright (talk) 07:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the decision to remove the paragraph and links to notable high schools. The basis of my disagreement is that the section included only high schools which were notable for historical, social, demographic or newsworthy reasons. While articles are frequently created for schools which are not distinguished that is not the case here, nor were empty links created to schools which were not notable such as my alma mater, South High in Denver. Fred Bauder 16:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

We're aware of your opinion and it was taken into consideration.Gator1 16:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

If it was taken into consideration, what happened to the useful information? Fred Bauder 17:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Let me clarify. Your opinion on the subject was taken into consideration and, ultimately, rejected. Let's talk about something else.Gator1 17:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Merging universities; merging articles

User:66.253.221.35 merged links in the Colorado page to UCHSC and UCD to form a link to an entirely new article, UCDHSC. This would imply that the two former entities are going away, to be replaced by the new entity. The implication of that change is as follows:

The suggestion was to merge University of Colorado Health Sciences Center and University of Colorado at Denver to form an entirely new article, University of Colorado at Denver Health Sciences Center.

That would be appropriate if UCDHSC is the one and only name by which this university will be known after the two entities have merged. I just don't know enough about it to say if that's the right approach.

After the merging is complete, then redirects to the new article will replace each of the older articles. To be complete, it would be appropriate to track down all the references to the former articles, and change them to point to the new article, updating the surrounding text, if necessary.

--GraemeMcRae 16:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that University of Colorado at Denver is merging with the Health Sciences Center. Isn't UCD still going to be on the Auraria campus, and the UCHSC going to be in Fitzsimons? There are still to separate websites for each of these schools [1] and [2]. I see that on the websites, they combined the names, but I still feel that they are there own separate institutions, in geographically separate areas, with different purposes and goals. In fact they even are called by separate names on the website as CU-Denver and the University of Colorado, Health Sciences Center. I don't think its appropriate to merge them. Vertigo700 18:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Number of Electoral Votes

In case there is any question, Colorado has 9 electoral votes. Here's the source: http://www.fec.gov/pages/elecvote.htm —GraemeMcRae^talk 15:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Metric vs. US customary Measurements

With all respect to the person who provided the stats for Colorado's statistics box, could someone please update these measurements with their US customary equivalents. I don't know if editing the statistic box is allowed. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.122.75.42 (talk • contribs) .

Editing the statistic box is allowed, but the template used to create the table was built expecting metric input (which I suspect matches the original source for at least most of the measurements that are included). There is a long standing request to show both metric and the US customary equivalent in the tables for each state. I'm willing and able to do this, but have not located a source for the width, length, and mean elevation measurements. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. states#units in the infoboxes. This diff suggests a reference that might have this information, but I haven't been able to track it down yet. If you can track down this reference, please let me know. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

pike

changed pike's peak to pikes peak per the Pikes Peak entry Heptapod 02:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Climate

There seems to be very little discussion of climate. Ken 23:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Should be, Colorado's weather is notoriously changeable, "If you don't like the weather, wait a bit". Also Colorado is affected by the Southwestern monsoon. Fred Bauder 01:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Prohibition

Colorado had an early prohibitoin -- in 1916, I think. Worth noting somewhere? Ken 23:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Editor19841 19:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Famous Coloradans

Perhaps as a miscellaneous section, we should add a section of famous native and adoptive Coloradans. Natives like John Kerry, just born here in Aurora on a military base (PBS Doc) and Karl Rove, who spent the first 10 or so years of his life here. Also, there are adoptive Coloradans like Clive Cussler or Bill Owens? - User:Lu Yan 1.22.06

John Denver is one of the more famous. Fred Bauder 01:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Great Western Central City

Can anyone provide any information on this?[3] --Daniel C. Boyer 01:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't look like anything in Colorado, past or present. Central City, Colorado is hemmed in tightly by mountains. I don't think Denver was ever called Central City. Fred Bauder 01:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope, not Denver. Denver incorporated Auraria early on, and was also called "St. Charles" and "Denver CIty". Could be a "marketing tool" used by a RR Co. to promote settlement/trade to Central Dity, but C.City is narrower, basically set into a canyon, running from just above Black hawk up to Nevadaville. notchcode 19:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I should have clarified that it is acknowledgly "imaginary" but is supposedly in Colorado. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a zoomable version here. I believe it is intended to be Central City, Colorado. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I had a closer look at the map; there is no mining activity indicated or illustrated. With Central City's fame as a mining center, I'd expect some mining to be represented, even on a fictional map, which this certainly is. Doesn't look like Golden, Denver, or Colo. Springs, either. Could maybe be a southern Colorado town, or maybe a representation of Black Hawk (as it sits beside Clear Creek, and had a RR. going to it, as does this scene), but I suspect it's entirely fictional.notchcode 04:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Richest Places in Colorado

Why is that list part of the article? Parudox 23:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Parudox, I was asking myself the same question when I saw that there. I think it'd be a good idea to delete it. — † Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 22:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I, too, was wondering why this is here. I'm going to remove it, if someone disagrees with this then they should offer a justification for keeping it. --The Way 04:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Bonanza is particularly gross. There is one rich part-time "resident", and a bunch of poor people. Fred Bauder 04:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Religion percentages

OK. Where did these numbers come from? It would be swell if there was a source listed. Then changes like the recent 2% to 3% would be easy to revert. Either it matches the reference or it doesn't. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The best source the editors at Minnesota could find is : [4] -Ravedave 05:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ravedave, I've incorporated that source into our article. --MattWright (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Naruto

This is really more for the set of arcticles relating to the anime/manga series, Naruto, but it's a bit about the state. I like in Colorado and I knew about the Uncut DVD box set that was supposedly released on July 4, 2006. But... I call Best Buy and they check for copies. They have it listed in their comps, but they say that they have none ordered and they're not registering any in the state. Is someone restricting uncut anime, or what, 'cause it's a bit frustrating... 67.172.141.198 22:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

Not too sure what others think about this, but how about removing the "coloradan" vs "coloradoan" section which states that "spell check even has it wrong" or something to that effect. (That is wrong anyways, because the daily paper in Fort Collins is named "The Coloradoan") What does everyone think?132.47.128.201 22:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I moved it into demographics area into a single sentence (certainly shouldn't be a whole section) and removed the claim that coloradoan is wrong, since both appear in merriam-webster online, which I cited. --MattWright (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

good faith?

Often a crock. If we are to assume "good faith" when writing, then why not when deleting?

So many of you are ready to delete anything that you don't agree with. A discussion page should mean discussion, not monologue.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colorado&diff=78310448&oldid=78174890 >.

Why are you protecting a phrase that I contend is in need of improvement? You say "unnecessary"; what is necessary about that phrase?

I am a devout agnostic [ ignostic ]; does that make me completely bad faith?

What is wrong about asking a factual question about the sheriffs?

What's wrong w/ asking about school shootings? More discussion, more study, more articles, might result in reducing our mutual violence, increasing our good faith.

And?

hopiakuta 15:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hopiakuta -- I think the problem was that your initial question about the wording of a statement was lost among rambling on about something unrelated to the Colorado article. If you have questions about the recent school shooting, it may be more appropriate to see Platte Canyon High School shooting, as this article doesn't and shouldn't cover that. I have removed the statement you had initially requested be re-worded because it was poorly worded, didn't add much new information and wasn't cited. --MattWright (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not have many of the answers, if I did, I would add them to the article. But I do have many questions as to why Colorado seems to have so much more homophobia than hemorrhagephobia.

It is a misleading impression which results from the location of Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs. Colorado is relatively tolerant of homosexuality. Fred Bauder 18:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Those answers do belong in "Colorado". They, also, belong everywhere.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Platte_Canyon_High_School_shooting&diff=78329710&oldid=78217237 >;

< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Platte_Canyon_High_School_shooting&limit=500&action=history >.

hopiakuta 18:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Further, if that page did not exist when I'd written, then that would make you a liar, &/or no fact-checker, & deletionmeister, as well.

Furthermore, How would I locate it?

hopiakuta 18:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

&, I had not advocated paragraph-removal.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colorado&diff=78321649&oldid=78160889 >.

Thank You.

hopiakuta 18:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

They sell Pepsi and Coke in Colorado, too, but that doesn't make a discussion of carbonated beverages appropriate for the Colorado page.

I don't know of a state where homophobia isn't more prevalent than hemorrhagephobia. Although it wasn't homophobia in this case; it was heterophobia. CNN says the sheriff decided that impatience was in order because he feared that the man might put down his gun and try to rape two girls at once, and god know, it would be impossible for two teenaged girls to escape an unarmed man while he was surrounded by millions of storm troopers.

You're right, questions ought to be asked - but even Platte Canyon High School shooting isn't an appropriate venue. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Try a discussion forum. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 18:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Elevation

The elevation numbers were just changed (with a reference) so that they now differ from those listed in List of U.S. states by elevation (which are presumably from the NGVD29 datum). Of perhaps particular interest, the lowest point was changed to Arkansas River, which seems to be simply incorrect (see http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3162/HiPlains/Arickaree/hiplains_arickaree.htm, which is confirmed by the USGS at http://erg.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/booklets/elvadist/elvadist.html#Highest). It seems like the numbers in two different Wikipedia articles should match. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

License Plate Numbering

I'm sure it's accurate, but I'm not sure who needs this. Who would get value in reading Colorado numbering system ? I think the section looks bad and and is a waste of space. I hope I don't hurt anyones feelings but...there it is....thanks Hrothgar 23:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree, remove it if no one defends it soon. --MattWright (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree actually ... if we could even truncate it, it would look better.Trodaikid1983 23:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Front Range

The Geography of Colorado describes the Front Range as extending from Wyoming to New Mexico. Properly, "Front Range" refers to the mountain range that extends from Mount Evans to Longs Peak. By extension, "Front Range" also refers to the area of the High Plains immediately to the east of the Front Range mountains.

The term "Front Range" does not refer to the entire Colorado Piedmont or the Colorado I-25 Corridor. We confuse people when we use this term improperly.

--Buaidh 19:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think, without doing research, that while you may be correct regarding the geographical term, the usage "front range corridor" refers to the whole region. Fred Bauder 12:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact, just yesterday I heard the weatherman on Channel 4 in Denver refer to the "Northern Front Range", then brushing his hand down in the vicinity of Pueblo, to the "Southern Front Range". Fred Bauder 21:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure your TV weatherman can be considered an expert geographer.

When I moved to Colorado 45 years ago, Front Range was only used to refer to the Front Range Mountains. Then people started using Front Range to refer to the region of the High Plains from Castle Rock to Fort Collins. Then the term Front Range Urban Corridor came into vogue to describe the region of urban population from Pueblo to Cheyenne. Now, many folks including your weatherman use Front Range to describe the entire Colorado Piedmont. If the term Front Range keeps growing, it may soon stretch from Chihuahua to Alberta.

--Buaidh 22:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Latitude, Longitude

1) What is the source of State boundary information? That is, what are the legal boundaries--where are they listed?

2)Currently, in Wikipedia, Kansas and Colorado seem to overlap. Is the Colorado 102deg longitude a rounded number?

207.67.146.9 19:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)curious reader

On 1850-09-28, the United States officially adopted the Prime Meridian of Greenwich for all nautical and international use, but also adopted the Washington Meridian (based upon the old United States Naval Observatory) for astronomical and official domestic use. Although the Greenwich Meridian was widely employed, the United States retained the Washington Meridian for official domestic use until the Greenwich Meridian was officially adopted for all uses on 1912-08-22. The borders of most western territories were defined during this period. Since the old United States Naval Observatory is 2.76 miles (4.44 kilometers) west of the meridian 77° west of Greenwich, most western states have borders 2.0 to 3.5 miles (3.2 to 5.6 kilometers) west of their Greenwich-based meridians.

The Enabling Act of the Territory of Colorado dated February 28, 1861, states that the extent of the territory (and the future state) shall be defined by the metes and bounds "commencing on the thirty-seventh parallel of north latitude, where the twenty-fifth meridian of longitude west from Washington crosses the same; thence north on said meridian to the forty-first parallel of north latitude; thence along and parallel west to the thirty-second meridian of longitude west from Washington; thence south on said meridian to the northern line of New Mexico; thence along the thirty-seventh parallel of north latitude to the place of beginning."

The actual state boundaries are defined by government surveys which deviate from the theoretical borders by small distances. The most recent National Geodetic Survey measurement of the Four Corners Monument places the monument at 36°59'56.31532"N 109°02'42.62019"W, about 114 meters (375 feet) south of the 37th parallel north and about 4.0 kilometers (2.5 miles) west of the 109th meridian west.

--Buaidh 22:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Article Split

We should consider splitting the article about Colorado into smaller articles because the Colorado page is 55 kilobytes long which according to the Wikipedia:Article Size guidelines is larger than the suggested size. We could easily break this article into smaller articles. Possible articles include: 1) Law & Government - 2) National Parks - 3) Economy. Creating these smaller articles would lower the kilobyte size of the main Colorado article and would then meet the Wikipedia Article Size Guidelines. Eric 22:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The actual article size does not appear to be exceedingly large -- I think there are a ton of lists of items that are taking up the bulk of the article, and these could certainly be split off into their own area. For instance, Counties, Cities and Towns and Metropolitan area are all just lists, which isn't indicative of a good article. --MattWright (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and note that some of the lists are other pages in their own right already, and don't need to be on the main page. Vertigo700 19:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've compressed Counties, Cities and Towns, and Metropolitan areas to links to those specific articles. --Buaidh 23:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the split-apart template -- it's been over a month with it there. I think compressing those sections helped and no other changes were proposed. --MattWright (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Coloradan vs. Coloradoan

This edit which included both 'Coloradan" and "Coloradoan" (made in response to an edit changing "Coloradan" to "Coloradoan") was reverted with a summary saying "Coloradoan" is deprecated except for the newspaper (i.e. Fort Collins Coloradoan). The US GPO Style Manual (cited from List of U.S. state residents names says "Coloradan". A google search of www.colorado.gov shows 39 instances of "Coloradan" and 19 of "Coloradoan" (including in the biography of Colorado's current governor). Can someone cite something that indicates "Coloradoan" is deprecated? If it is deprecated, it's not deprecated very forcefully (e.g. Ritter's biography). -- Rick Block (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see the University Style Manual. State employees are instructed to use only the term "Coloradan". A few obsolete references nevertheless sneak through. Obviously, not all of the Governor's staff has gotten the message. See Governor Ritter's inaugural address --Buaidh 15:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the state or a university can dictate the language. See this dictionary entry or these which list both spellings as valid. Coloradan may be the "preferred" spelling, and enforced within specific organizations, but no single person or entity can "deprecate" a word in the English language. I don't see a problem with listing both and including an explanation and source that Coloradan is preferred. --MattWright (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I sent the following memo to the Governor Ritter's Press Secretary this morning asking that the Governor's website be cleaned up:

Dear Evan,

Governor Ritter’s biography is headlined “LIFELONG COLORADOAN”. The term “Coloradoan” is obsolete and should now only be used to refer to the Fort Collins newspaper. Please see the University Style Manual

The Governor himself consistently uses the term “Coloradan”. (Please see Governor Ritter’s Inaugural Address.) I think it is important that the Governor’s website and all state government websites maintain a consistent style.

The Governor's Press Secretary replied:

You are correct. Good catch. Thanks.

Matt can spell "Coloradan" as "Kahliradiian" for all I care, just not in Wikipedia. I don't think Wikipedia should encourage incorrect usage. --Buaidh 16:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for "correct" usage, and general use within Wikipedia should follow current standards (I'm perfectly willing to accept the US GPO Style Manual as a source, as per List of U.S. state residents names - this seems even more "official" than CSU's style manual), however I'm not sure what it hurts to also mention "Coloradoan". I'm not at all arguing Coloradoan is correct, but it certainly seems to be used. How about some compromise wording like:

Citizens of Colorado are officially known as Coloradans, although "Coloradoans" is also used.

Just to be clear - I don't think this is a big deal and it only comes up because an anonymous user changed it to "Coloradoan". Rather than say nothing about it, I think it might be good to mention it in some way and clarify that "Coloradan" is the official (correct) term. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Citizens of Colorado are officially known as Coloradans, although the obsolete term "Coloradoans" is still used. (Just don't get me started on Hoosier.) --Buaidh 17:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A term cannot be obsolete if it is still used. I agree it may no longer be the official or preferred name, but it still is used by people. Buaidh, I never suggested using Coloradoan over Coloradan in any other place in Wikipedia, when it is used to refer to a resident of Colorado. I agree Wikipedia should use preferred usage of a term and use it consistently, but on a page discussing what Colorado residents are called (not actually using the term to describe a resident), mentioning both spellings is entirely appropriate. --MattWright (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There are many obsolete terms still in use - "ain't" for example. "Ain't" is both obsolete and deprecated. "Ain't" and "Coloradoan" both belong in the dictionary, but they don't belong in proper English speech or writing. Call me old fashioned.

Just to beat a dead horse, I've seen "Coloradoan" in print many times, but in my 45 years as a Coloradan, I've never actually heard anyone use the term. Has anyone actually heard the term used in speech (other than in reference to the Fort Collins newspaper)? I think people may add an extra letter to the word when writing because they think a longer word must be more elegant. Why not "Coloradoian" then? --Buaidh 20:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Photos of mountain peaks

I'm looking for some nice photographs of the following Colorado mountain peaks for the Colorado mountain peaks, Colorado mountain ranges, and Mountain peaks of the Rocky Mountains articles:

• Mount Elbert
• Uncompahgre Peak
  • recently added: Image:Uncompahgre_peak.jpg
• Grays Peak
  • uploaded: Image:Grays_and_Torreys_Peaks_2006-08-06.jpg --MattWright (talk) 04:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • uploaded: Image:Grays Peak, Colorado - 2007-06-17.jpg --MattWright (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Castle Peak
• Mount Powell (Colorado) in the Gore Range
• Clark Peak in the Medicine Bow Mountains
• Flat Top Mountain in the Flat Tops
• Parkview Mountain in the Rabbit Ears Range
• Mount Zirkel in the Park Range
• Blair Mountain on the White River Plateau
• Crater Peak on the Grand Mesa
• South Bald Mountain in the Laramie Mountains
• Diamond Peak on the Diamond Plateau
• Zenobia Peak in the Uinta Mountains

Thanks for any help. --Buaidh 15:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you planning to show an image for each mountain in the list or where will they be used? Here is one of Parkview Mountain, but the license terms are not acceptable. I would email them to see if they can change it, but not sure where it would be used. I flickr mailed a couple people with photos of Uncompahgre Peak and Grays Peak to see if they can change the license, but still waiting on that. If an article exists for the peak, or I can show them where it will be placed, it is easier to get them to contribute I think. --MattWright (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mountain peaks of the Rocky Mountains

I've created a new Mountain peaks of the Rocky Mountains with the 108 highest mountain peaks of Rocky Mountains. The table has the adjusted NAVD 88 elevations for all peaks, including the 107 highest peaks of Colorado. --Buaidh 17:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

English dictionary pronunciations

Merriam-Webster Online: "kä-l&-'ra-(")dO, chiefly by outsiders -'rä-

New Oxford American Dictionary:

US English (Diacritical)	US English (IPA)	British English (IPA)
ˌkäləˈrädō; -ˈradō	/ˌkɑləˈrɑdoʊ/	/ˌkɒləˈrɑːdəʊ/

(See the dictionaries' pronunciation respelling for English.)

fyi. —RVJ 20:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Pokemon?

Someone seems to have added the word "pokemon" to this article. See "The most pokemon special district taxes are." I don't know what that was supposed to say, so I can't fix it. Could someone who knows the article please fix it?

71.218.251.227 00:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC) hello dudes so was up good luck on your state report —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.63.236 (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Religon

The religion section is very badly written, especially the Christian Populations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.42.151 (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit by 65.101.218.215

The last edit done by 65.101.218.215 looks to me like it is an act of vandelism. This person just changed a date without backing up the change with any reference for data to prove his/her point. And this is this user's first edit, we have no background to go on. I was about ready to just undo the edit, but decided to get someone else's opinion first. Rocketmaniac (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it; many such changes in dates or numbers are made. If they are unsubstantiated in well-established articles, I always revert such changes, and I do consider them to be vandalism - somewhat sneaky. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea, that was my first reaction, but then I didn't want to seem like the big bully type. I figure if one is going to change a date or figure, they need to back it up with facts. Thanks for you help/advice. Rocketmaniac (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I usually do say "unsubstantiated number/date change" when undoing those, on the off chance that it might be legit but just not referenced. 99+ times out of 100 it is just vandalism. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Presidential elections results

Dwilso (talk) has indicated "I can't read the last paragraph because the presidential results interupt it", referring to the table in the "Government and Politics" section. Does anyone else have this same problem? I am unable to detect it with my setup. Tim Ross (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Borders

We really need to stop saying that Colorado is bounded by straight lines, and that it's one of only three states to be so. The southern border has a small jog in Archuleta County near Chromo (which lacks an article) and Pagosa Springs on the CO side, and Dulce and Chama on the NM side. This isn't mentioned in the article. We need to mention it, since I would wager most people don't know that Colorado isn't bounded by four straight lines. In particular, we have an unsourced comment saying Colorado is defined as being bound by 37 and 41N, and 102o03 and 109o03; this obviously is not true, so clearly the statement is incorrect. Either Colorado is defined by that, or the jog exists; both cannot be true. That the jog exists is not in dispute; it is visible in all maps of the state, if represented only by a pixel or two. The article on Geography of Colorado carries the same issues, and needs to be fixed as well. --Golbez (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a second much less dramatic jog along the border with Oklahoma, which just goes to my point: We cannot say Colorado is defined by these lines, since it does not match them. We need specific references as to the true borders of Colorado. --Golbez (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This has also been discussed extensively at Talk:Wyoming#Geography. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah are the only three U.S. states whose borders are defined exclusively by lines of longitude and circles of latitude." The meridians (lines of longitude) are straight lines, but the parallels (circles of latitude) are actually circles. The three states were defined as such in their congressionally enacted territorial organic acts.

That said, the actual legal borders of the states were surveyed multiple times to establish legal property borders. These legal borders are usually within a few hundred feet of the defined borders, but in some cases the legal borders may stray more than a mile from the defined borders. These legal borders have hundreds of small jogs. --Buaidh (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Then we can't say it's defined by such, since it's not a perfectly straight line. We can say something along the lines of, "Apart from minor deviations, the borders are..." but obviously they cannot be the legal definition, which I assume what is meant by the word "defined". --Golbez (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

OR, if they are in fact legally defined as that (and subsequently legally changed), we can say "the borders were originally defined as X, but have had minute changes over the years", although I doubt the Chromo jog is about legal property - that looks very much like an error in surveying. --Golbez (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The statement, "Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah are the only three U.S. states whose borders are defined exclusively by lines of longitude and circles of latitude." is factually correct. No survey can exactly match a latitude and longitude definition. --Buaidh (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Colorado is considered to be the only perfect rectangular state. WY has a jog in it at the Yellowstone National Park. That's according to my High School Colorado History book. Saddly I had to return it about a month ago to the school, so I can't cite it right now. Eiceman (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Read above, Eiceman. Neither the eastern border nor the southern border of Colorado are "straight" lines. The eastern edge of Montrose county takes a 7 to 8 mile diagonal southwest of the town of Paradox. The southern border of Archuleta county takes a 1 mile diagonal just southeast of the town of Edith. The boder Colorado shares with Oklahoma is also quite irregular.

Because the western border is shared with Utah, and since the northern border of Wyoming takes turns, there are no states whose borders are defined only by lines of longitue and latitude.

Furthermore, since the earth is spherical, lines of longitude are not parallel. Hence, if there were a state with borders defined by global lines, it would be trapezoidal at best, not rectangular. Struhs (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Time Zone

Colorado is completely in Mountain Standard Time. The Time zone boarder for central is cuts though Kansas, not CO. The banner on the side says both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.86.17 (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to sign in for that last message, it was me. Eiceman (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Famous Coloradans - again

An anonymous user added a section on Famous Coloradans with this edit. I've replaced the content with a link to List of people from Colorado, which is also linked from the "See also" section. I'm not entirely convinced this section is necessary at all. Other opinions? -- Rick Block (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the removal of the recently added section, as these are very hard to keep under control. That said, I'm not really sure where the best place would be to have a link to List of people from Colorado. It looks strange in a section all by itself, but it gets buried in this article's rather large 'See Also' list of links. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Flora and fauna?

What are the notable flora and fauna of Colorado? Dogru144 (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

They vary by ecological region, but especially notable are the Bighorn Sheep and the aspen. Fred Talk 18:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This book: Explore Colorado, A Naturalist's Handbook, The Denver Museum of Natural History and Westcliff Publishers, 1995, ISBN 1-56579-124-X for an excellent guide to the ecological regions of Colorado. would give you a good, but simple overview. A section in the article on ecological regions with typical flora and fauna would be welcome. Fred Talk 18:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

æ?

I've never seen anyone inside or outside of Colorado pronounce it like that. 199.117.69.8 (talk) 23:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Naming and Disambiguation

'Naming/disambiguation discussion was moved to wikipedia talk:naming conventions.' Summary: The discussion was about whether or not Colorado should be a disambiguation page. It was decided that per naming conventions the article "Colorado" should be about the state and all other uses of the term should be naturally disambiguated (e.g. Colorado River, Colorado Plateau). There are no known uses of the word "Colorado" that cannot be naturally disambiguated (thus there is no need to parenthetically disambiguate). Those terms will be added at the end of this article and linked within it where appropriate. The rest of the discussion was about naming conventions and capitalization issues.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mav (talk • contribs) 21:19, 7 May 2002 (UTC)

pronunciation

The supposed guide to pronunciation is nonsensical. The international phonetic alphabet should be used, ideally in narrow transcription.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.232.81 (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and on another note, I lived in Western CO for a while and almost never heard anyone from CO use the Spanish pronunciation. It was almost always use the "Cah-loh-rah-doh" (/ˈkɑloˈrɑdo/) pronunciation. Is it a Front Range thing or is the article misleading?

Population Rank

The Colorado page says it's ranked 24th in population, while List of U.S. states by population says it's 22nd. I'm changing it based on this, but if I'm wrong change it back

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.3.69 (talk) 08:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Mining?

There should be more of a mention of mining here, both in reference to current economic makeup and Colorado's history. The 1858 gold rush into Western Kansas Territory is, after all, what founded the little towns of Auraria and Denver, as well as countless mountain towns. Gold, Silver, Coal, Uranium, Vanadium, Molybedenum, and even a diamonds are/have been mined here, with significant impacts on Colorado's economic history. I have a large batch of info related to the history of mining in Colorado, as well as Mined Land Reclamation, if we can find a home for it here. notchcode 20:31, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Put a bit in the main article, more in History of Colorado. If you want to do more create [[Economic history of Colorado]] or [[Mining history of Colorado]], (or mining history of the Western United States). Fred Bauder 16:49, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

First to Universal suffrage?

It is mentioned here that Colorado was the first state to grant universal suffrage rights in 1893 by giving women the right to vote. However, Wyoming granted voting rights to women earlier, in 1890, upon becoming a state, and earlier than that, as a U.S. territory. This is why Wyoming is even called the Equal Rights State. I may be misunderstanding the sentence. Can anyone clarify, or else, fix the issue?--Beezer137 (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"Colorado was the first state where men voted to give women the right to vote." Not quite sure what that means; did women vote to give women the vote in Wyoming? I agree, this needs deeper checking. --Golbez (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Women gained the right to vote through a state constitutional amendment passed by the men of Colorado during a general election on November 7, 1893. Colorado became the first state in the Union to approve women's suffrage in a popular election. The territorial legislature of the Territory of Wyoming gave women the right to vote in 1869. Please see Women's Suffrage in Colorado. --Buaidh (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It could be said that Colorado was the first state to approve women's suffrage (note the italics) because Wyoming was still a territory when women got the vote there. However, it could also be said that New Jersey was the first state to grant women's suffrage (1776) but revoked it in 1807 (see the New Jersey section in the article Women's suffrage in the United States). rathersane (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Culture Section?

There seems to be a lack of discussion on the culture of the state. I consider Colorado to be a state with relatively unique cultural aspects. Such a section might include the popularity of outdoors activities, the state's Western heritage, etc. We might also be able to put any information (new or old) about sports teams, colleges, etc. Would anyone else find it a good idea to add something to this effect?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.82.59.175 (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Colorado in fiction?

I would like to see a section for Colorado in Fiction, where films, novels, etc. that take place in or feature Colorado are listed. It could include books like Atlas Shrugged, Dianne Mott Davidson's novels, etc. Some films would be The Shining, Dumb and Dumber, and The Prestige. I think there are enough works of fiction that include Colorado to merit this list, but not too many to be overwhelming. Can we consider doing this?

CinematicESP (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There are categories for Films set in Colorado, Films shot in Colorado, Television shows set in Colorado, and Colorado writers. I think there are far too many to list in this article. Although finding these categories from this article is cumbersome, I'm not sure there's an obvious solution. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The best book about Colorado is James Michener's "Centennial" fiction based on fact, so could it be added? Stars4change (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Extreme Weather Section

{{editsemiprotected}}

The last sentence "Colorado is also known for its droughts that occur every few years, causing major wildfires such as the Hayman Fire, one of the largest wildfires in US history." needs work.

The first part of the sentence is too vague and does not cite a reference for the "known for" remark. Was there a poll of New Yorkers somewhere? Additionally, does it refer to all droughts, moderate droughts, severe droughts or what? According to Colorado State University "93% of time at least 5% of state (based on percent of long term weather stations) is experiencing drought at either a 3-, 6-, 12- or 24-month time scale" [5]. That's considerably more than "every few years". However the same report also states "Multiyear droughts of up to three consecutive years with less than 60% of average precipitation have occurred once or twice in the past 110 years at some locations in southeast and southwest Colorado."

The second part is factually incorrect. All fires require three things: fuel, oxygen, and a source of ignition. A lack of water (a.k.a. "a drought") is none of these. By convention, the "cause" of a fire is usually the ignition source, which in the case of the Hayman burn was one Terry Barton. Droughts only contribute to the severity of fires.

I believe it should be changed to read:

Colorado is a relatively dry state averaging only 17 inches of rain per year and rarely experiences a time when some portion of the state is not in some degree of drought.[6] The lack of precipitation contributes to the severity of wildfires in the state such as the Hayman Fire, one of the largest wildfires in US history.

Epinksto (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Done Celestra (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

History section needs some missing info

the history section mentions nothing about portion of colorado formally being part of Texas during its history.Gulielmi2002 (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Texas claim is merely a bit of historical minutia. The Republic of Texas claimed all of northeastern Mexico between the Arkansas River and the Rio Grande and extending north to the 42nd parallel north. Texas never occupied this enormous western region and ceded most of the claim to the United States in 1850. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits from user 98.67.164.144

It seems like the said user was very enthusiastic about this article and made a fair amount of edits. While I know very little about Colorado the edits he made to the History section has definitely left its marks. Can we have someone to verify the edits he made please? 222.153.224.254 (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The area of Colorado

How do you calculate the area? If it's 380 mi × 280 mi, why is the area less than 106,400 sq mi? --88.83.177.139 (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Colorado's boundaries are latitude and longitude lines, so it's a geoellipsoidal rectangle not a cartesian rectangle, i.e. the north and south boundaries are curved and the north boundary is shorter than the south boundary. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Geography/shape

I have changed the definition of a geoellipsoidal rectangle, because that properly is a reference to the shape that is formed by that particular method of creating the border lines. Colorado, conversely, is a political territory within the Federalism structure of our National and State Governments. The shape of the borders of Colorado is not relevant to the political concept/definition of Colorado, nor relevant to any other State in the Union. Thus, it is not accurate to refer to "Colorado" as a geoellipsoidal rectangle. A geoellipsoidal rectangle, is a mathematical concept. Colorado is NOT a mathematical concept; it is a political concept. Thus, if the phrase "geoellipsoidal rectangle" is to be used at all, it must be clear that it is a reference to the mathematical form that was created by the method they used to draw the boundary lines. EditorASC (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, although I think "defined" more properly pertains to the borders, not the shape. Looking into this, "geoellipsoidal rectangle" is apparently not a standard term. "Latitude-longitude quadrangle" seems fairly common, but "quadrangle" appears to have a specific meaning in geography, see Quadrangle (geography). The point being made here is that the shape is not a "normal" (Euclidean) rectangle. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

You are correct; the shape is not normal. It gets that funny name of "geoellipsoidal," because the longitude lines converge on the globe, the further North one goes. That makes the rectangle wider at the bottom (I think I read somewhere, that the northern border is about 60 miles shorter than the southern border) than it is at the top. Thanks much for helping to improve that paragraph; your wording of the latter part was definitely an improvement. I had a hard time trying to figure out the best way to word that kinky part of the description... :-) EditorASC (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying "geoellipsoidal rectangle" is a common term used to describe an area bounded by latitude and longitude lines? It seems to have no use outside of Wikipedia (and sites mirroring Wikipedia's content), see [7]. And, yes, one reason it's not a Euclidean rectangle is because the longitude lines converge at the poles. It's also not a rectangle or even a trapezoid in spherical geometry or elliptical geometry because the north and south borders are not geodesics. This shape is called a "latitude-longitude quadrangle" in MATLAB [8], defined as the intersection of a lune and a zone (which are both standard terms in spherical geometry). Wikipedia should not be inventing terms. "Geoellipsoidal rectangle" seems to be a neologism. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"Latitude-longitude quadrangle" would be a better description for the shape of Colorado and Wyoming if the Earth was a sphere, but unfortunately it is not. I believe "geoellipsoidal rectangle" is the more precise term. The intersection of the Earth's lines of latitude and longitude are at right angles on an ellipsoidal surface. Please search for "ellipsoidal rectangle" on the Internet. You will find many references. "Geoellipsoidal" refers to a shape like that of the Earth.

To address the concerns of EditorASC, please note the following excerpt from reference #8, "An Act to Enable the People of Colorado to Form a Constitution and State Government, and for the Admission of the Said State into the Union on an Equal Footing with the Original States".

2. Boundaries. That the said state of Colorado shall consist of all the territory included within the following boundaries, to­wit: commencing on the thirty­seventh parallel of north latitude where the twenty­fifth meridian of longitude west from Washington crosses the same; thence north, on same meridian, to the forty­first parallel of north latitude; thence along said parallel west to the thirty­second meridian of longitude west from Washington; thence south on said meridian, to the thirty­seventh parallel of north latitude; thence along said thirty­seventh parallel of north latitude to the place of beginning.

Congress chose to define the boundaries of the future state in mathematical terms after the borders of the Territory of Colorado had been surveyed to the best achievable accuracy. Unless you are a far better mathematician than I, I suggest we just go with "geoellipsoidal rectangle". Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's what I find when searching for "ellipsoidal rectangle" (google search). I'm not seeing any evidence that this is even a remotely common term. Whether it's on a sphere or an ellipse, an area bounded by latitude and longitude is not a rectangle - since the latitude lines are not the same length (and aren't even "straight", i.e. a latitude line is never the minimum distance between two points on an ellipse or a sphere except for two points on the equator). If you're not happy with using "latitude-longitude quadrangle" (based on MATLAB's definition), I'd suggest we not use any name for this shape at all unless we can find a reference that specifically names Colorado's shape (and Wyoming as well). -- Rick Block (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

A rectangle is a plane figure with four right angles. If you don't like standard mathematical terms, why don't you create your own neologism. Perhaps you could call the shape a colowyo. I think you're creating a fuss where there is no problem. Buaidh (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

My point is that we should NOT create or use a neologism. "Latitude-longitude quadrangle" is not anything I created - it's what MATLAB calls the intersection of a zone (an area bordered by two latitude lines) and a lune (an area bordered by two meridians, e.g. longitude lines). "Zone" and "lune" are standard terms in spherical (and elliptical) geometry, there's even an article about lunes. How about if I ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography whether there's a standard geographic term for this sort of shape? -- Rick Block (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I've sent this question out to several experts in geodesy to see if there is a consensus. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I really don't care if the term "geoellipsoidal rectangle" or some other mathematical form term is used. The "geoellipsoidal rectangle" was put there by some other editor, before I got into the act. My point was, and still is, that it should be clear that the mathematical form term used, is a reference to the shape of the boundaries of Colorado, and not a definition of Colorado itself. The original wording defined Colorado as a mathematical shape, which is not accurate. Colorado is a political entity within the unique Federalism form of government, which was created by the Constitution of the United States. "Colorado" is a political concept, not a mathematical concept. EditorASC (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Understood - however the wording change you introduced (changing "Colorado is defined as ..." to "its borders make a shape that is defined as ...") brought attention to the term used to describe the shape. Per above, as far as I can tell the term "geoellipsoidal rectangle" is not a standard term and has no definition - so the (more or less pedantic) point that Colorado is not defined as a shape has morphed into a different (more or less pedantic) point that its shape is not defined as a "geoellipsoidal rectangle". I think the "most" standard term for a shape bordered by latitude and longitude lines is "latitude-longitude quadrangle" (it's at least not a term we've coined). -- Rick Block (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• File:Colorado: Its abbreviation is Colo,
• File:Capital Denver,
• File:Nickname Centennial State,
• File:Discover August 1, 1876,
• File:The largest sand dune in North America is in Great Sand Dunes National Monuments in Colorado. It has peaks up to 700 feet tall.
• File:The United States Air Foce Academy is located in Colorado Springs.
• File:Wild West showman Buffalo Bill Cody was buried on top of Lookout Mountain in 1917.

Numine

An IP just changed the meaning of numine from "providence" to "the diety". I don't speak Latin, but a little bit of Googling revealed that the meaning of numine is debatable and hard to pinpoint to any one translation. Rather than revert the edit, I was wondering if a consensus should be reached as to what best translated word should be used in the motto's translation. I was not able to find a discussion on this in the archives. This way any future reverts will not be based on someone's opinion, but on what we all agree it should be. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked at Seal of Colorado#Motto? Apparently, even Colorado officials have differing opinions about how it should be translated. Deor (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Deor, thanks for your response here (and on the help page). And I absolutely can't believe I didn't notice the typo, including in my own message above. Thanks for the link, I hadn't looked there. They do seem to try to differentiate between "deity (God)" and anything else. I suppose the edit can remain though, I don't think there's much of an argument either way. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Occupational privilege tax??

Under the subhead "Municipalities", the page currently has a rather detailed description of the head taxes in Denver and Aurora. As an overview page encompassing the entire state of Colorado, this is not the place for such details. That section should be deleted from this page, and added (if necessary) to a more appropriate page (e.g. the pages for Denver and Aurora). However, those decisions and tasks I will leave for more qualified editors. Niobrara (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. Have you seen any sort of precedent with pages like "Taxes in XX" for different states? That could be the right home. --יהושועEric (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen that, so I just pasted that paragraph into the Denver and Aurora pages, and deleted it from this main Colorado page.Niobrara (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Photo Gallery

this page is more like a photo gallery than a Wikipedia article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.26.99.74 (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

XKCD

[9] Expect some vandalism the next day or two. Jfmantis (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw it too and after 3 attempts I decided a bit of protection was probably worth it. James of UR (talk) 06:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep. I'm disappointed in our vandals, though, for not even attempting to render [ˈeːijaˌfjatlaˌjœːkʏtl̥] as the comic does. What dilettantes. Angr (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

What's funny is that they all do things differently; each bit of vandalism had a different number of characters. Nyttend (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from editing this article to match the July 9, 2012, edition of xkcd. Thank you. - Dravecky (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Colorado Rivers, Lakes, Streams, Creeks (Waterways in General !?!?!?!?)

There is no one location.section in which to identify Waterways ...

/bob Callanan, Admiral Denton, TX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.36.18.150 (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a "See also" link to Colorado rivers at the bottom of the Geography section. -- Ken_g6 (factors | composites) 20:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

pronunciation

i've lived here my entire life and lived in all the major cities and nobody pronounces it kɒləˈrædoʊ. 76.120.17.197 (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

201% Religious?

Add up them stats on religion. Now I know no-one put those in with the intention of making it look that silly, but including the denominational break-down brings the total up to over 200% and makes the data somewhat moot.

Anyone wanna clear that up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.122.101 (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Natural Resources

Really? Someone is being optimistic. "Colorado’s oil shale deposits hold an estimated 1 trillion barrels (160 km3) of oil – nearly as much oil as the entire world’s proven oil reserves". Flight Risk (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Map is wrong

State highlighted in red sure looks like Michigan to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.127.23 (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Coat of Arms Photo?

What happened to the Coat of Arms photo that was in this article? Can someone point me to the location where I can find it? This is my first go at editing/talking on Wikipedia. Not sure if I'm doing this right :/ Uu23 (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Colorado. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130117052953/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Maps/US2/36.38.-106.-104.php to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Maps/US2/36.38.-106.-104.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140813192125/http://www.denvermagazine.com:80/March-2011/Colorado-039s-Master-Sommeliers/ to http://www.denvermagazine.com/March-2011/Colorado-039s-Master-Sommeliers/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060301064354/http://www.ag.state.co.us:80/resource/colorado_land_ownership.html to http://www.ag.state.co.us/resource/colorado_land_ownership.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150219065613/http://ccs.colostate.edu:80/style_guide/style_guide_az.aspx to http://ccs.colostate.edu/style_guide/style_guide_az.aspx#state_names
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141224151538/http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/twps0056.html to http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/twps0056.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111226183123/http://www.cnbc.com/id/37516043 to http://www.cnbc.com/id/37516043/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120219174500/http://www.airports.org/cda/aci_common/display/main/aci_content07_c.jsp?zn=aci&cp=1-5-212-218-222_666_2__ to http://www.airports.org/cda/aci_common/display/main/aci_content07_c.jsp?zn=aci&cp=1-5-212-218-222_666_2__

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ag.state.co.us/resource/documents/TotalCOLandOwnership.xls

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.i2i.org/Publications/ColoradoConstitution/cnenable.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080503160619/http://norml.com:80/index.cfm?Group_ID=3391 to http://norml.com/index.cfm?Group_ID=3391
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ag.state.co.us/resource/colorado_land_ownership.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217015546/https://www.revenue.state.co.us/PDF/05104f.pdf to http://www.revenue.state.co.us/PDF/05104f.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070218175148/https://www.usgs.gov:80/state/state.asp?State=CO to http://www.usgs.gov/state/state.asp?State=CO
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041030230311/https://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=n&_lang=en&qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP3&ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&geo_id=04000US08 to http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=n&_lang=en&qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP3&ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&geo_id=04000US08
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041030225840/https://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=n&_lang=en&qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP4&ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&geo_id=04000US08 to http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=n&_lang=en&qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP4&ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&geo_id=04000US08
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041030234534/https://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=n&_lang=en&qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP2&ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&geo_id=04000US08 to http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=n&_lang=en&qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP2&ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&geo_id=04000US08
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100725045834/https://www.askcolorado.org:80/ to http://www.askcolorado.org/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111015012701/http://egsc.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/booklets/elvadist/elvadist.html to http://egsc.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/booklets/elvadist/elvadist.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019160532/http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-pop-text.php to http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-pop-text.php
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6HZRQVgCU?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fgeo%2Fwww%2Fcenpop%2Fstatecenters.txt to http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cenpop/statecenters.txt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140305164937/http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DP_DPDP1&prodType=table to http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DP_DPDP1&prodType=table
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141224151538/http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/twps0056.html to http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/twps0056.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5uRWqBo2m?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dola.state.co.us%2Fdlg%2Flocal_governments%2Fmunicipalities.html to http://www.dola.state.co.us/dlg/local_governments/municipalities.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070612125743/http://www.dot.state.co.us/ to http://www.dot.state.co.us/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070701073723/http://www.dot.state.co.us/App_DTD_DataAccess/Maps/index.cfm?fuseaction=MapsMain&MenuType=Maps to http://www.dot.state.co.us/App_DTD_DataAccess/Maps/index.cfm?fuseaction=MapsMain&MenuType=Maps
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070602232429/http://dtdexternal.dot.state.co.us:80/travelmap/ to http://dtdexternal.dot.state.co.us/travelmap/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://dola.colorado.gov/dlg/local_governments/counties.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://dola.colorado.gov/dlg/local_governments/municipalities.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://dola.colorado.gov/dlg/local_governments/lgov_a.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on March 10, 2017

There's been a few examples of common vandalism.

Here, somebody changed State to Continent: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colorado&oldid=769441599

Here, somebody changed the names and parties of senators: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colorado&oldid=769323619

Here, somebody changed the infobox to represent Nazi and White nationalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colorado&oldid=769019122

This has to stop.

Thanks The Infobox Strikes Again! (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Image dispute

PivotWithDrops

Hi, a person on commons has complained that this picture, used in the article, must actually be of Yuma County, Arizona because of the visible mountains. Any thoughts? Blythwood (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cenpop/statecenters.txt
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/twps0056.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160219004405/http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/08000.html to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/08000.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501072251/http://www.thejeffersoncup.com/ to http://www.thejeffersoncup.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dola.state.co.us/dlg/local_governments/municipalities.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://dola.colorado.gov/dlg/local_governments/municipalities.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150512074548/http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/08000.html to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/08000.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC) ————————————

6/21/2017 Hi,

I do not know the correct format or protocol for editing. If someone wants to act on this information, and then delete my edit, that is fine with me. The main article, near the beginning, says that the state was named after the Colorado River. That is factually incorrect. The river wasn't named Colorado until 1921 when the name was changed by Congress. The state entered the U.S., as named, in the 1876.

Hope that helps.

---

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150319073548/http://ttb.gov/appellation/us_by_ava.pdf to http://www.ttb.gov/appellation/us_by_ava.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205102713/http://www.stanwyck.com/cogenweb/cocounties.html to http://www.stanwyck.com/cogenweb/cocounties.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090209230420/http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/climateofcolorado.php to http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/climateofcolorado.php

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060116094720/http://www.ag.state.co.us/resource/colorado_land_ownership.html to http://www.ag.state.co.us/resource/documents/TotalCOLandOwnership.xls

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

Information to be added or removed: I propose adding the below text in quotes to the education section of the page:

"Colorado ranked 25th in the nation for educational performance, according to Education Week’s Quality Counts 2018 report. It earned an overall score of 74.5 out of 100 points and a grade of C. By comparison, the nation received a score of 75.2 or a C.

Colorado posted a B in the Chance-for-Success category, ranking tenth on factors that contribute to a person’s success both within and outside the K-12 education system. Colorado received a mark of D-plus and finished 40th for School Finance. It ranked 14th with a grade of C on the K-12 Achievement Index."

Explanation of issue: I believe this text would enhance the page, adding information on the quality of the state's K-12 education which is not currently available on the page. I'm asking your consideration because I work for Education Week. I apologize if I've misformatted this or left out information you need to make a decision - I'm rather new at this.

References supporting change: this is the source I'd cite: Csmithepe (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Csmithepe

References

Reply 11-FEB-2019

  Edit request declined  

• Please provide a source unconnected to Education Week for this claim.

Regards,  Spintendo  21:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Colorado's 7 degrees from West to East and 4 degrees from South to North was chosen by US Congress

I added... This 7 degrees from West to East and 4 degrees from South to North was chosen by US Congress. 2601:580:100:AD1C:F8EF:1492:9E6E:63AF (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Where is Colorado's Wildlife Section?

I cannot recall if Wikipedia's Colorado entry ever had a Wildlife section, but it most certainly should, as Colorado is well-known for its wildlife. Whoever's editing this Wikipedia page has managed to excise all but two references to it, despite the fact that countless pages online, including a number from the Colorado State Government itself, reference our wildlife: "Few other places in North America offer such a bounty of wildlife-watching opportunities as Colorado. Who in your group will win the eagle-eye award by spotting some of Colorado’s most majestic residents — state mammal bighorn sheep, bald eagles, mountain goats, moose, elk, pronghorns?" I think it's high time the Colorado Division of Wildlife and other interested parties become more involved in restoring the accuracy and completeness of Wikipedia's entry on Colorado.Clepsydrae (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Colorado for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Colorado is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Colorado until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

"Colarado" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Colarado. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Change WikiProject United States ranking from "Mid" to "High"

While I'm still not certain what the particular value of the rating system for WikiProjects is, Colorado more than certainly has a level of importance as a high level matter if you compare it to the other pages that also hold that status (view mid list here and high list here). If nobody objects, I will act and move it to the "high" category at the end of the week. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It is done. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)