Talk:Denver International Airport

message: Why didn't they make runways 7 and 8 (25 and 26 the other way) parllel?
:A: I believe it is to leave open the oportunity for expansion. Just like the north/south runways, they are actually parallel.  Having 4 runways with the same numbers would cause more confusion.
:a: Actually, it is because the wind patterns around Denver have a tendency to shift significantly. While that's not a critical failure (crosswind landings are possible), this allows for efficent airfield usage. Also the pinwheel formation allows relativly short taxi times to outlier runways.
::It has nothing to do with wind patterns. The runways are effectively parallel. It is as the first answerer says - so they could have four "parallel" runways. Standard practice with parallel runways is to label one "Right" and one "Left". So runways 7 and 8 could be "7L" and "7R" (or "8L" and "8R",) but by making them one number off (theoretically between 1 and 10 degrees apart,) they could later add parallel runways for each, for FOUR runways in that alignment, "7L", "7R", "8L", and "8R".  (And the reverses, of course.) It was in the original plan to be able to have up to four runways in each major direction.  This is already in place with other runways 16L/16R/17L/17R.  (16/17 are the "crosswind" runways compared to 7/8.) Ehurtley (talk) 05:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions about DEN 

message: I saw this article listed in :Category:Software engineering disasters, but I don't see what disaster occurred.  Is it referring to the automated baggage handling problems? --Mrwojo 23:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Software engineering disasters

message: DIA is famous for the canopy tents ment to resemble the Rockies. Could somebody either take a good picture of the airport from the exterior or locate one? Editor19841 20:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *It looks a bit like the airport in Barbados.  GAIA Image CaribDigita (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tents 

message: When I think of the denver airport, I think of the distinctive white roof, and it's a pity there aren't any pictures of it in the article.
here are some creative commons pictures of the denver airport:
http://flickr.com/search/?q=denver+airport&l=cc&s=int
I like this one: 
http://flickr.com/photos/ishmaelo/26056907/
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.105.159.32 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 2006 July 9.
:I do like waiting at midnight although it might need to be cropped a bit.  I've also got a dialogue going with the rights owner of  to see if we can get a GFDL or CC license to it. —Cliffb 06:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  any images of the distinctive roof from the outside? 

message: Should this conspiracy theory site  really be included?  It contains so many basic factual errors about the airport that it doesn't seem right to direct people there implying that what the site says is true. ——The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avsfan1321 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 2006 July 17.
I think both of them should go specifically these two. —Cliffb 16:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thought about this more and Decided to Be Bold and remove these two links. —Cliffb 17:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy Theory Site 

message: I corrected an inaccuracy in the opening paragraphs in regard to Ted, the discount airline subsidiary of United.  In the previous version, Denver was noted as a minor hub for Ted.  While thie is accurate from the standpoint of Ted being a minor airline, it is inaccurate from the standpoint of Hub "ranking".  DIA is the primary hub for Ted, with the most flights and connections going through DIA.  Denver is not a secondary or minor Hub for Ted.  If anyone disagrees, I invite them to check the corporate website, www.ted.com.  --Tbkflav 02:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: www.flyted.com —Cliffb 03:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ted 

message: I have added a new section to the article about DIA's runway/taxiway integrity.  According to a recent Denver Rocky Mountain News article, the concrete used in these runways is sub-par, either due to intentional dilution by the contractor or due to the natural freeze/thaw cycle.  I have tried to be detailed...so if anyone has anything to add or subtract please post it here and their reasoning...if someone finds something new I would love to see it!  The article can be found on pg 21A of the July 15th Rocky Mountain News.  If you look online, you can find it at *.  You will need to search for July 15th and for Denver International Airport Runways.  The article will cost $2.95 to read, but a free snippet is available.  --Tbkflav 04:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue seems to be disappearing and doesn't even have any awareness inside of the Denver community. Should this information still be in the article?
--Jprismon 17:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Runway Integrity

message: Are they really all that necessary?  I just think they clutter the article.. Thoughts? EnsRedShirt 06:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that they should stay. However, if you want them removed, I'd recommend bringing it up at the Wikiproject. DB (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's be realistic...they're not going anywhere. Sox23 21:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destinations?  

message: The intro uses both.  Which is it? Vegaswikian 05:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's 53 square miles according to DIA's website (http://www.flydenver.com/guide/index.asp). I also made the change in the article. Sox23 03:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  53 or 54 square miles? 

message: There doesn't seem to be any mention on this page of the various conspiracy theories about the airport. While they may all be junk they are noteable in and of themselves and widely repeated. Could they at least be stated somewhere on the page and, if they contain falsehoods have the counterarguments placed in the section too? (I understand why external links to cooky web pages have been removed but their overwhelming factual inaccuracy isn't going to go away if we simply ignore what they say). 193.129.65.37 12:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy Theories 

message: In the article Blizzard stops travelers cold at CNN.com, I read that DIA supposedly had something in its original design to make it "storm-proof".  What was that?  Can it be cited and placed in the article? Will (Talk - contribs) 09:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Supposedly the runways at DIA (unlike its predecessor Stapleton International Airport) were far enough apart that the airport would never need to close because of weather.  The publicity at the time said that the closely spaced runways at Stapleton were to blame for its intermittent closures. Never, however, is a mighty big word.  DIA may close less frequently than Stapleton did, but two feet of snow will still close it.  Even if, somehow, the airport runways could still be used, the airport would be closed in practice because of the condition of Pena Boulevard.  Paul 01:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention the rest of Denver.  It's kind of useless if Pena and the main highways are open but the local roads leading home are impassable, though I suppose you could at least stay at a hotel and not at DIA.  Of course, this only applies to people who are going to or from Denver, not simply changing flights.  I read the airport cleared something like 4 million cubic feet of snow after the first storm; who could keep up with that kind of snow volume in a 24 hour period?  --BetaCentauri 04:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The snowproof label was a bit out of context. The entire reason for the airport originally was since Stapleton's runways were to close together to allow simultaneous ILS approach from multiple planes under foul weather. That meant that any snowstorm in Denver had the same effect as last weeks storm, and two weeks ago blizzard had on the overall airline traffic structure in the US. There are some plans to help winterize the airport a bit better, but for the most part, there is only so much you can do to offset 10 year storms like what we had a few weeks ago. The other issue is off course Pena Blvd which is far more vulnerable to bad weather then the airport is. As far as hotels go, beleive me that the conditions where bad enough here that you didn't get into a car unless it was a humvee. I hope denver will re-examine that plan to build a hotel directly attached to the airport, or that the light rail line makes these kind of problems less severe. Jprismon 20:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Suppose runways, taxiways, and apron all had a built-in heating system.  All you need are a series of deep holes you put a closed loop of plumbing down into filled with anti-freeze and a few pumps to send it under the pavement.  By the time you get more than 20 feet down (in non-tundra areas), the ground is plenty warm enough to melt snow and ice. Will (Talk - contribs) 00:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storm-proof design? 

message: Here, it says that DIA is the 2nd largest airport in terms of size in the world, but on King Fahd International Airport's page, the 2nd largest is supposedly Montréal-Mirabel International Airport.  Which is correct? Gittinsj 04:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Montréal-Mirabel International Airport is bigger than DIA, but no longer handles passenger traffic, so it depends on what you mean by "2nd largest".  I assume the size rankings don't include military airbases either.  -- Rick Block (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: King Khalid International Airport is actually bigger than DIA as well, so DIA is actually the 4th biggest in the world in terms of land area. MEA707 04:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think DIA and King Khalid International Airport are close in land area, but, I think Denver may be a small amount larger. Sha721 (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  size of airport 

message: The only place the monorail controversy exists is in the minds of its supporters looking for free publicity.  In several years there will be light rail connecting DIA with most of the Denver area, making the monorail redundant for that stretch.  Thus, if a monorail is built to the ski resorts it won't originate from the airport. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.241.41.217 (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DIA is going to get heavy-rail, not light-rail. MEA707 03:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct.  Regardless, the airport rail link won't be monorail and therefore this section is irrelevant.  I have removed it.  --BetaCentauri 05:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Monorail Controversy? 

message: Do you guys think it would be prudent to include a notation about Earl Dodge's death? According to his Wiki, he died of a heart attack at Denver International Airport. Seems like an interesting bit of minutia, but I'm not sure if it meets the criteria.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.135.210.244 (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No- it has nothing to do with the airport except that it ocurred there. Sox23 00:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Earl Dodge

message: The section of Kiosks has absolutely nothing to do with the airport, and should not be present. My change was reverted immediately. We would not spend the time to talk about the exact testing process of the canvas of the roof, which is a much more distinctive thing about the airport then this. 
Jprismon (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the details really ought to be on Wikipedia, I'm happy to create a page for Internet kiosks at Denver International Airport, as Jprimson suggested. Ashill (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *I've rewritten the internet kiosk section to state the current status of the kiosks first, citing each fact separately, and improving the grammar. (Both previous versions needed copy editing.) The length is intermediate but all that I believe is appropriate for an encyclopedia entry about the Denver airport; if more detail is appropriate (there is plenty more detail in the Networld LLC articles, although I'm not convinced that Networld is a reliable source, given that it appears nowhere else in Wikipedia), a separate article about the Shibby internet kiosks ought to be developed. Ashill (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version as rewritten by Ashill looks like a good compromise to me. I wouldn't mess with it anymore. --A. B. (talk)  16:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I am still a bit unhappy with this. The SFO article, for example has a single paragraph for all of the consumer features of the airport. We are dedicating just as much to the kiosks. LAX doesn't even mention it. In my opinion, it is still nothing more then a advertisement in a prominent place about a airport. 
The following statements have nothing to do with what DEN is:
* The Shibby kiosks were manufactured by Kiosk Information Systems 
* (KIS; the parent company of current developer Zoox) 
* The name "Shibby" was invented by the 13-year-old son of KIS' president.(cute, but Has nothing to do with DEN) 
* We list 4 companies in one paragraph. None of which have anything to do with the airport. 
I am sorry to be pedantic on this one, but Wikipedia is not a billboard advertising for Kiosk information systems, or Zoox. If we want to talk about DEN, why not talk about WestPac's demise there? (Because we have a seperate article about that, which at least is aviation related).
Can we at least move it below history, or the runways, or what carriers are flying there? It's a eyesore, and detracts significantly from the readability of the article.  
Jprismon (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't object to any of those changes; I would object to continuing the edit war, and I prefer the current shortened version to what Uncle G kept reverting too, which was terrible. Maybe make a new telecommunications section near the bottom, perhaps after the public transportation section? Ashill (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's just create a new article, and leave a sentence about it. I think noting that there are Kiosks is valuable. Putting a advertisement isn't.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.47.54 (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SPAM  

message: Related spam ? --87.194.174.252 (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Redirected from Shibby) 

message: I have seen this mentioned a million times on non-verfiable references... how many times does this need to happed before it gets put in a pop culture section or something? I tried to add it once a long time ago and it got deleted, but its doesn't change the fact its all over the internet66.220.110.83 (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Once on a verifiable reference. Ashill (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Google satellite image shows 3 north-south runways, 2 east-west runways. No swastika. No crop circles either.--A. B. (talk)  16:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: so there's a thousand people's blogs which talk about this- if I posted all of them as refs it would count as a "pop-culture" thing if nothing else. However I am for reducing bandwidth almost as much as you guys with user id's, so I won't do that. But really where is the line? because we all know how many hits there are when you google this subject, lets not be naive. I know you can't say what the runway layout looks like but this has to be a candidate for at least a one sentence blurb. and yes there is a WP on crop circles, so maybe we can spare the extra space on the DIA page as well (and I do mean space in every sense of the word)66.220.110.83 (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be more relevant on the Swastika#Taboo_in_Western_countries page -- something to the effect of "the connotations of a swastika are so negative that even coincidental similarities, such as the appearance of the runways at Denver International Airport, have been taken by conspiracy theorists to have significance." I don't think it's relevant to DIA itself unless a news or academic article has some meaningful synthesis of all the conspiracy theories out there. In fact, this theory is already on List of conspiracy theories (uncited), so it really doesn't need to be here. Ashill ([[User 
talk:Ashill|talk]]) 14:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: considering there is already 4 links in the "conspiracy and criticism" section I will prolly add it there unless someone asks for a more complete explanation. if there is already a link to the mural controversy then there will (from now on) also be a link to the swastika controversy. 66.220.110.83 (talk) 09:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So if you like to delete peoples writing with no reason, this is where you would post about it. If you "had" a reason that is... please remember this is a blog entry by the same author of the main Westword DIA article which goes into extensive details about the theories concerning DIA. I ask the question again, how many google hits before its notable on that fact alone? you guys keep fighting this story and it keeps getting bigger. why? 66.220.110.83 (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The Denver Westword articles seem reliable to me, so I put in a brief mention. I don't think it's appropriate to link conspiracy pages when they're not used as references (re WP:External Links), so I deleted the criticism/conspiracy external links. Ashill (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: What "discussion" of it? There's no discussion of it outside a lunatic fringe of conspiracy theorists. Nobody takes any of the claims seriously because they're all complete bunk. FCYTravis (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the treatment as it stands now, at most. These theories are really given all the credence they deserve on list of conspiracy theories. Ashill (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: fine, except I think the artwork has a bit more proof than the rest of it. maybe we could mention that in some way? also I have pics of the mural that I took if you think it would help the article. 66.220.110.83 (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A picture of the mural would be fine, provided that it's presented in a way that demonstrates the interior appearance of a portion of the airport (like the other photos on the page), not in connection with the conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories certainly do not merit a picture here. Ashill (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The artwork has proof? Of what? That there was a grand conspiracy to... paint a mural? Laughable. FCYTravis (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean that, no one can prove the existence of tunnels or reptiles and they never will- but a life-size mural of a gas-mask wearing soldier with a gun, kind of speaks for itself. as does a child in a coffin. What I mean by proof is that these murals are public, so everyone can look and form their own opinions, unlike hearing 4th hand stories of about underground levels etc. The westword article specifically mentions how people see these murals for themself and then start asking questions. So i think these murals are notable on that reason alone. Not to mention massive public art installations in AIRPORTS which show graphic depictions of death, burning cities, and faceless soldiers, are perhaps notable for that very psychologically dangerous reason, doubly so after 9/11. So the article already has a section on the murals, good. I have pics of the whole thing, if we post a pic it shoud probably not replicate the ones from the westword article. That leaves us the soldier, the kids destroying ploughshares, or the coffins, as far as major thematic elements left to address. Thank you to the two editors for showing some reason in this process66.220.110.83 (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Posting your photos here for the purpose of portraying conspiracy claims smacks of original research. Ashill (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: We already give the conspiracy theories all the space and interest they deserve in this article. FCYTravis (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The mural 'reads' right-to-left. 'Hitler McVader' (the big tyrannical soldier) in the right-hand 'before' part is creepy, but in the left-hand 'after' mural he's dead - broken in pieces, with doves nesting on him, and swords being pounded into plowshares over his head (which is a reference to the prophet ISaiah, IIRC - sunday school was a long time ago!) Peace triumphs over war. Most people's instinct, if they're Western, is to read left-to-right, but the rainbow is the arrow that the artist, Leo Tanguma, intends us to follow. Hitler McVader is spooky because tyranny, war and bigotry are terrifying things...but like Hitler McVader they can be defeated.76.66.41.131 (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  THANK you. R-L is not an unheard of reading direction, thank you. Also, the group going OMG OMG about the people in coffins need to learn their history. They are Jewish, Black, and Native American - and these are the three groups majority well-to-do folk like my ancestors let down badly and continue to discriminate against. That is why those people are there; that is why they are the races they are. I'm not an artist, I'm a history minor, and one about as un artistic as one can imagine...and this was blatantly obvious to me. Also, 'Hitler McVader' is the best nickname for that guy ever. And yes, the swords into plowshares is an Isaiah ref. 76.71.51.82 (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swastika Shaped runways 

message: In articles it is common practice to document accidents and incidents in a specific section labeled as such. Please keep all accidents and incidents in this section. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After consulting Narita International Airport, LaGuardia Airport, George Bush Intercontinental Airport, Indira Gandhi International Airport, and Honolulu International Airport, it appears that it could go either way. If you choose to keep it in the new section, please make sure to move all other accidents and related information from DIA to this section. Thank you! Mononomic (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Accidents and incidents

message: United Airlines International arrivals from Canada, Mexico and the UK are in Concrouse A. Because Concrourse B dosen't have Customs and imrgation [[User Wizzair|Wizzair 10:30 23 June (UTC)
:It doesn't matter. First, we count departures, not arrivals. It is a list of destinations from each airport, not a list of origins to each airport. Second, differences in arrival terminals are already noted in Concourse A. They are not repeated in another terminal. Third, Canadian flights are domestic. All of those flights listed have already been pre-cleared by US customs and immigration at origin. HkCaGu (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: United Airlines

message: Could we get a picture of the blue horse?Smallman12q (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'll try to find one from Flickr licensed under Creative Commons. Can we also delete the reference to a Facebook group in that section—Wikipedia is not Facebook. Mononomic (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horse 

message: Why is there a heading "Art" in the article? Only art discussed is the horse, but there is a lot more interesting art at the airport. Regardless of the text of conspiracy sites, there should be some mention of the art at the airport 85.145.94.241 (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Art 

message: I liked that section, it's what made this article interesting someone deleted it in February without reason and it was never put back. It was referenced with reliable sources so it looks like someone blanked it as vandalism. But it wasn't picked up. Pity...as it's just made me look stupid after a friend's relative is flying there today and I told them that there where all these conspiracies surrounding this ariport, and they said of course "Bullshit". So I said, check it out, it's all on the Wikipedia article. They then get back to me, because the whole piece has been arbitrarily deleted, and call me a fucking liar. Thanks Wikipedia and thanks for the haphazard way that these articles are managed. Especially as the conspiracy section had been agreed on by consensus on this talk page!!
* I'll have to look at it to see what happened and what the section was like. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the section. What happened was, in February 2010, an anon IP editor tried blanking it three times and got reverted twice but on the third attempt it looks like noone caught it. All three times there was no explanation given for the removal. -- œ™ 08:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If there was a conspiracy theory section on every wikipedia page whose subject had conspiracy theories, every page would have one. the conspiracies are garbage, plain and simple. Kris1123 (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the Conspiracy theory section? 

message: DEN-LHR certainly isn't the busiest international route. in 2008/2009 it was flown by 1.5 carriers, with a maximum yearly capacity of about 150K passengers, however it is listed as 356K, which would require 1K passengers per day, 4x current capacity, 2.5x 2008/2009 capacity. Kris1123 (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Busiest International Routes 

message: * http://business.flydenver.com/community/masterplan/docs/layoutPlan.pdf WhisperToMe (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Master plan

message: *Schrader, Ann and Jeffrey Lieb. "Amid Frontier turmoil, Denver International Airport has been planning for loss of airline Amid Frontier turmoil, Denver International Airport has been planning for loss of airline." The Denver Post. June 15, 2011.
WhisperToMe (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: "DEN" vs. "DIA" are scattered throughout the article. Does anyone have an objection to me standardizing them all on "DEN" (the current code,) and adding a sentence explaining the change? Ehurtley (talk) 05:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any objections to standardizing the code? 

message: This article should tell the reader that the airport's weather is unusually bad, one of the five worst in the US. There's the winter snow, of course, and there's the summer thunderstorms, and the tornado warnings around June. Heavy weather at DIA has negative ramifications across the US as other flights are delayed or redirected. This is important critical information which an encyclopedia should have. Binksternet (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fifth worst weather airport in the USA 

message: Please delete Kansas City, Mexico City,and Minneapolis/St Paul from the United Airlines destinations served from Denver.  Kansas City and Minneapolis/St. Paul are only served by United Express, and neither United, nor United Express fly to Mexico City from Denver.
Standberg (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done: I've verified the schedule and MCI/MSP are not flown by mainline. MEX goes through SFO which is a hub which disqualifies listing per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. HkCaGu (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored MEX. It's every Saturday. HkCaGu (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2014 

message: Change the thumbnail entitled "Concourse A and control tower" to "Concourse C and control tower". The former is incorrect. You can confirm via Google maps or other sources that Concourse C is attached to the control tower, not A.
Wallaceicy06 (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: May I suggest that changes to desription and file name are made on Commons first? Sam Sailor Sing 06:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2014 

message: Changing the name of the "Frontier Airlines Airbus 320-200" to "Frontier Airlines Airbus A320-200", since that is the correct name for such aircraft model.
VictorCat (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Already done assume you mean the picture caption Cannolis (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2014 

message: The flight list includes a direct flight by Alaska Airlines (scheduled to begin in the past) from DEN to PDX.  Alaska does not have such a flight or publicly show plans for such a flight in the future.  The addition of this flight also fails to cite any source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malevole (talk • contribs) 17:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! HkCaGu (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi Protected Request to Remove Alaska Airlines Flight to Portland (OR) 

message: Hi, their are multiple destinations on Frontier, that are ending or going seasonal, such as Sioux City, Bakersfield, Santa Barbara, Minot and Bismarck. Could somebody update this?
72.92.38.253 (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2014 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Denver International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120731031431/http://www.denvergov.org:80/DenverOfficeofCulturalAffairs/PublicArt/RecentInstallations/LuisJimenezMustangMeste%C3%B1o/tabid/437085/Default.aspx to http://www.denvergov.org/DenverOfficeofCulturalAffairs/PublicArt/RecentInstallations/LuisJimenezMustangMeste%C3%B1o/tabid/437085/Default.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071013111749/http://gtconveyor.com:80/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=44&Itemid=59 to http://www.gtconveyor.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=44&Itemid=59
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can someone update the branding? They have a new logo and go by DEN now, officially. 73.153.79.210 (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airport branding has changed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Denver International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130126034927/http://flydenver.com/artdetailpage?URI=tcm:8-34010&PURI=tcm:8-34002 to http://flydenver.com/artdetailpage?URI=tcm:8-34010&PURI=tcm:8-34002
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130920084735/http://ir.constellation.com:80/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=594804 to http://ir.constellation.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=594804
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080117164440/http://www.flydenver.com:80/diabiz/info/research/aviation.asp to http://www.flydenver.com/diabiz/info/research/aviation.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Denver International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140522124145/http://www.ecquants.com/2012_DEN.aspx to http://www.ecquants.com/2012_DEN.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080208150555/http://www.colorado.edu:80/libraries/govpubs/dia.htm to http://www.colorado.edu/libraries/govpubs/dia.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 13:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I've trimmed the material on Blue Mustang here, and moved it to its own article. -- The Anome (talk) 07:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blucifer 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Denver International Airport. 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/20120511115727/http://business.flydenver.com/community/enviro/documents/annualReport2009.pdf to http://business.flydenver.com/community/enviro/documents/annualReport2009.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150412011439/http://business.flydenver.com:80/info/news/pressKit.pdf to http://business.flydenver.com/info/news/pressKit.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150702193133/http://www.flydenver.com/sites/default/files/downloads/June%201%20DIA%20Westin%20Opening.pdf to http://www.flydenver.com/sites/default/files/downloads/June%201%20DIA%20Westin%20Opening.pdf
*https://aviationrepublic.com/denver-international-airport/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.65.31.19 (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Cochetopa is not a Navajo word.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.101.243.238 (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navajo 

message: The article states DIA has 133 gates. Further down it talks about the 26 new gates to be added. That would bring the total to 161 gates. Not sure, whether my math is wrong, but for me that sounds like 159 gates. What am I missing? Is there somewhere a clear reference page how many gates by Concourse the airport has? --FideKoeln (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Updated lead to reflect details in body Michaelmalak (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I checked the Financial Report 2016. It reads there, that DIA has 'concourses with a total of 107 full-service contact gates and 40 ground loading positions.' That would make 147 gates all together. The Denver Post writes in this www.denverpost.com/2017/08/01/denver-international-airport-expansion-manager-contract-45-million article about '107 gates and 42 apron positions'. Does one apron position not equate one gate? FideKoeln (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe gates are being counted in this article by some Wikipedia editor going to  (the citation given in the article) and manually cataloging and listing the gate numbers and counts to record in this article. Some purists might call that WP:SYN, but I lean more toward including available information rather than excluding :-) Anyway, I'm not sure, but my hunch is that "apron" includes both regional gates (which are not "full-service") as well as (pardon me, but I don't know the official term for them) "parking places" on the tarmac where passengers may board. Most of the other documentation on flydenver.com commonly makes the distinction between full-service gates and regional gates -- this is the first I've heard of "aprons" from flydenver.com. It might be we need to distinguish in this article between full-service gates, regional gates, and non-gated aprons? Michaelmalak (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Gates 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Denver International Airport. 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/20070813011621/http://osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=SPEECHES&p_id=194 to https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=SPEECHES&p_id=194
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: why have all the international route passenger numbers been deleted, except for the top 10?  some of us enjoy see passenger date on ALL international routes, and for years that's what this Wikipedia article had.  Please bring that data back.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.49.25 (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  international routes 

message: Southwest airlines is a big airline AT DIA, They use almost all of T3. They are the 2 biggest airlines at dia, but there is not a hub, I think we will be seeing a hub at dia, there has been talking about a hub on Twitter, southwest has said they have the idea in their hands. Southwest might not have a hub at DIA because United Airlines, And frontier Airlines a hub. United has all of T2. So will Southwest get a hub at DIA. I Thick they will, I think this will happen from 2021 to 2022.
KDEN- airport code
DIA- I way to say Denver airport fast
Made in 2020 by IfA from youtube 
(  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABC Ifa from Yt (talk • contribs) 20:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southwest Airlines Becoming a hub holder at KDEN (Denver int airport) 

message: 135 km is 83mile not 52 as stated although 83km is 52miles 2A01:4B00:D003:BB00:A5DF:E722:8998:C (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re size error 

message: Every few years or so, i’ve noticed the conspiracy theory section gets brought up again. Seeing as this has been debated since 2004 (check the first topic on this talk page), I feel like by now, we should have come to a conclusion. I belive a conspiracy theory section would be beneficial to the page, as it would serve as a place to present both sides of them (and honestly, is it not entertaining to hear  the conspiracies about DIA?). Someone mentioned the possibility of using credible sources like The Denver Post (more credible then other sources, I should state). Thoughts? I’d be happy to help start that research if needed. :) --Caez247 (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: (I should note, my intention is not to start a debate about these theories or whether they should be in/about the DIA)--Caez247 (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Interesting you bring this up. I was stranded at Denver airport two weeks ago and noticed there was no conspiracy section. I found a couple of sources (one from the New York Times and a couple from the Denver Post) talking about how the airport embraced the conspiracies and used them for marketing. I think that this makes the conspiracies relevant to this page. I am just about to add my edits. Thoughts and corrections would be appreciated. I have also noticed that many parts of the page lack citations, or the links are broken and I have been slowly picking away at them. Hippopotenuse72 (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy Theory Section 

message: Hello Wikipedia editors,
there is no page of Southwest Airlines Flight 3695https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/faa-says-southwest-plane-with-boeing-engine-cowling-fell-off-during-takeoff-2024-04-07/#:~:text=No%20one%20was%20injured%20and,after%20losing%20the%20engine%20cowling.. yet. Should someone create a seperate page or do you not want a seperate article about Flight 3695?
Cheers,
Amogus Rundfunk (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southwest Airlines Flight 3695