Talk:Phoenix, Arizona/Archive 1

message: If someone has an image of the official city seal, that is needed for the InfoBox. Dr. Cash 22:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  City Seal Needed 

message: Both this page and the Philadelpia page claim their respective cities to be the 5th largest city.  The Philadelphia page says:
*A July 1, 2002 census estimate showed the population dropping modestly to 1,492,231, with Phoenix, Arizona surpassing the city proper as the 5th largest city in the United States.  However, later estimates showed that Philadelphia's population loss and Phoenix's population growth had both slowed, leaving the rankings unchanged for the present.
In light of this information, I think the Phoenix page should be changed, but I'm not sure what others think...  Ratiocinate 18:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Information Please Almanac shows Philly still ahead by about 50,000 as of July 1, 2004 (US Census estimate), with Phoenix having gained 100,000 since April, 2000. Since Philly lost 47,000 during the same four year period, Phoenix should be ahead within the next year or so. --Blainster 06:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Until the official census figures come out for 2005, we can't really say anything. Statements like, "Phoenix has probably surpassed Philly in population," are speculative and should not be mentioned in an encyclopedia. Plus, if individual users come up with their own estimates, that would violate wikipedia's policy on original research. Dr. Cash 20:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: According to the U.S. Census Bureau 2005 estimates. Philadelphia still outedged Phoenix by a slim margin and until the 2006 figures care released next year, we shouldn't change it. The ranking and population wasn't challenged by the Census Bureau (see: http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/2000s/2005/05s_challenges.html) Just relying on just on information from one city's website is inconsistent and "one-sided". --Moreau36 19:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The US Census estimate as of July, 2005 for Phoenix was 1,461,575. For Philly the estimate was 1,463,281, so we are officially behind by 1706 persons.  But unofficially, I think everyone would agree that we are now #5. (If people are moving in at a rate of 80-100k per year to the valley each year but they haven't been counted yet, did the tree fall in the forest?) We can be patient until the numbers are verified.  --Blainster 01:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  5th largest city 

message: I think that the high cost of housing in neighboring California could force a population migration into Arizona.  Currently, Phoenix offers some of the most inexpensive housing in the nation and is growing culturally.  It certainly has much to offer a person that would like to own their own home.  -- Anon User: 67.118.191.149 June 19 2004
:Anon User made a good prediction. The migration is in high gear from CA (and Mex).  As of July 1, 2005, housing prices in metro Phoenix had risen a whopping 43% in one year.  Population inflow to the metro area is 100,000 per year and the builders can't keep up.  --Blainster 09:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population Migration? 

message: An entry for Troublechild as a famous Phoenician was added today. I've never heard of this entity and I don't find anything on Google. Rather than revert, I thought I'd ask, just in case. Catbar (Brian Rock) 01:42, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone Heard of Troublechild? 

message: I'd really like to see a cite for this assertion:
>>>projected to become the third largest U.S. city by 2020. 
I find it very difficult to believe that a city with only 1.321 million people will surpass the population of Chicago (2.896 million people in 2000) in the space of only 20 years.  That would mean 1.575 million people would need to move to Phoenix in the space of 20 years - more than doubling the population of the city (that is, if Chicago's population remained stagnant.  While Chicago isn't known for its recent population spurts, it's unlikely- with the current popularity of urban renewal and living- to lose enough people to make this Phoenix assertion any more likely).  Considering that Phoenix is hemmed in by suburbs, limiting its potential for growth, and that such a level of population growth is pretty much unheard of even for the Sunbelt, I'd really like to see a cite on this alleged fact.  If the fact is supposedly for the metro area, that would mean that Phoenix would somehow need to become more populous than the San Francisco Bay Area by 2020 - extraordinarily unlikely.
I've seen so many wacky "facts" lately - I almost wish Wikipedia required footnotes.  User: Moncrief
:To quote a USA today article outlining the fastest growing counties in 2004 from the US Census Bureau...
:"(The county with the highest numerical increase was Maricopa County, Ariz., which added 112,000 residents.)" - http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-04-14-county-growth_x.htm?csp=34
:Multiply that by the remaining 16 years... and you have a 1,792,000 population increase. Give some of that to some of the outlying Maricopa County cities, and you are becoming awfully close... 
:I migrated from CA to AZ, and a good portion of neighbors are from CA as well. It's definitely not scientific, but I think the the CA to AZ cheaper housing migration is accurate.  --my 2 cents.
::True, Phoenix may not grow that much, but the metro area is and will continue to.  Mesa, AZ on the east side of Phoenix grew from 150,000 in 1980 to 400,000 in 2000— an example of "more than doubling" in 20 years that is "pretty much standard" in this corner of the Sunbelt. Same goes for Las Vegas. Just the eastern side of the Phoenix metro area is currently projected to grow by one million in the next 20 years, and Mesa will grow to 650,000 (barring Armegeddon or bin Laden). Every year for the last 20 years, 100k have moved to the metro area, and there will no stopping them for the next 20.  So while the city of Phoenix itself may not generate the growth mentioned, the whole valley certainly will— there is nothing but desert "hemming it in". Yep, they have the water, too. --Blainster 10:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Phoenix, although growing at a modestly fast pace, will unlikely outedged Houston anytime soon due to the fact that Houston is also growing at a fast pace with a current population of over 2 million inhabitants. Weather plays a little factor in population growth. Let's take an example above about population and humidity. If that statement is true, Florida wouldn't be the 4th largest state (with a population of almost 18 million and growing) and Miami wouldn't be the 5th most poplus metro area in the country. Weather aside, the reason why more people are moving to Florida and the southeast is due to a relatively low cost-of-living. It's interesting that you have a few east coast cities bouncing back slowly in population. Anyway, Phoenix will be 5th for the next two to three censuses, in my opinion. Nwe York, Los Angeles, and Chicago will likely not be touched (barring any great disaster). --Moreau36 19:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phoenix third largest city in 2020? 

message: Although I respect the position of Navajo and Western Apache, I just added the O'odham name and put it right after the name.
This is for a number of reasons.
1) The city is still known to the tens of thousands of native O'odham speakers as Skikik. Many of these speakers live in or near the city.
2) The name has a strong historical significance, due to the prevalent idea that Phoenix was once a Hohokam settlement. While it is unknown whether or not the O'odham are descended from or otherwise related to the Hohokam, the O'odham themselves claim that they are the descendants of the Hohokam (o'odham "Huhu:gam"), a claim not echoed by any other group.
3) Whether or not the Hohokam are the ancestors of the O'Odham people, the O'Odham people (specifically the Tohono O'odham [ex papago]) have a history of settlements in Phoenix and the surrounding area (much of the surrounding area is inhabited by Pimas, who are a subdivision of the O'Odham) since it was first visited by Mexicans.
4) "Skikik" is the only O'Odham placename without an obvious origin or meaning. All other O'Odham names have meaning, or are loans from other languages. For example: "s-vasai vesoni" refers to Scottsdale, it means "soggy grass/hay"; "cuk son" refers to Tucson, it means "black base", "mo:mli" refers to Mesa, it means "mormons" (a loanword from English), "nowa:l" refers to Nogales, it is a loan from the Spanish name, etc, while "Skikik" has no other meaning than "Phoenix", and is not a loan (like the name for Nogales or for Sonora).
5) Given 4), it emphasises the strong ties of the O'odham people to Phoenix, stronger than even to Tucson or Baboquivari (O'odham Vav Kivalik, meaning "navel of the world").
Node 07:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other names 

message: I just completed somewhat of a major reorganization of this article. First, the infobox at the top has been redesigned somewhat. The old infobox just didn't look right, with the skyline picture at the top, separated by the infobox below. I have now joined these two and included the pic with the infobox, which looks a bit neater. Furthermore, on some browsers, the picture was so separated from the infobox that the text of the first paragraph came between the two, which just looked bad.
The different parts of the article have been organized in a slightly different fashion, following guidelines from other articles; mainly the Featured Articles of Louisville, Kentucky, Seattle, Washington, and San Jose, California. The sections are now:
*History - didn't touch this section at all, really.
**Prehistory
**Origin of the city
**Prosperity and modernity
*Geography
**Climate - merged from separate section.
*Economy - written as prose, moved lists to separate page.
*People and culture
**Demographics
**Media - removed lists of radio/tv and wrote as prose.
**Sports - removed lists of teams and wrote as prose.
**Museums and other points of interest - needs to be written as prose and not as a list. Probably needs some good photos here, too.
**Parks and outdoor attractions - Not there yet. But a section describing city parks and things like camelback mountain, with photos, would be desirable.
**Annual cultural events and fairs - Also not there yet. This should be a section with details on some of the annual events in the area. With a picture or two.
*Infrastructure
**Government
**Education - added college information. more information is needed on the K-12 schools, though obtaining this could be difficult, as there are 32 school districts in the area.
**Transportation - rewrote this section.
*Sister Cities - added list of sister cities.
*See also - Basically, this section is for linking to articles elsewhere on wikipedia that have info pertaining to phoenix. We should have a list of past mayors here.
*External links - Don't want this to become a so-called, "link farm." The only things that really should be here are links to the official government page, chamber of commerce, convention & visitors bureau pages, and links to maps of the city. Lots of people have the tendency to add links to their own personal websites here to drive traffic to their site, which is wrong.
Dr. Cash 22:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Reorganization 

message: "The area's adult contemporary station KESZ (FM) 99.9 has been known to play Christmas music during the holidays, as has classical station KBAQ (FM) 89.5." ? WTF? is this necessary? sorry,no offense intended,this just seems silly.
:I agree that temporary progam information is superfluous here.  Especially since many stations do this.  --Blainster 20:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this needed? 

message: I removed two external links under the Places of Intrest list for Child's Play, and Valley Youth Theater I don't think youth theaters are that important but if anyone dissagrees they can add it back in as an internal wiki. Deathawk 21:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ad removal 

message: I added the cleanup tag to bring attention to some sections of the article that need copy-editing, organization and wikification. Great article!!! Adhall 08:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you mind elaborating on which sections need attention? Dr. Cash 05:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the cleanup tag -- I apologize for the misclasification Adhall 13:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: There are a lot of nice pics on this page, but some of them were unnecessary. There were four pics of downtown, and we simply don't need that many. Also, sunrise and sunsets are nice, but also not necessary. The upside down cactus pic is cool, but it might be next on the chopping block. 
Also, portions of this article have a travel guide feel to it, and that is not appropriate (see What wikipedia is not). The neighborhood sections need some updating and facutal info, or they might just have to go. This article is much longer than it should be (articles should be <32K), so we should be trimming the fat at this point. -Nicktalk 03:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pics & Other stuff 

message: The Phil Gordon link in the box is broken, as it links to the wrong Phil Gordon.Simon12 13:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for catching that. I've made it into a red link. -Will Beback 21:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phil Gordon 

message: I've never heard of such a thing (see page history for the paragraph I deleted), and even if it did exist, I highly doubt it will go 370mph. -Nicktalk 01:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golden Bullet? 

message: Is there a history or reason behind the name? Please mention  the etymology, thank you.
 ~JBP~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.14.79 (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Looking at the given four reasons for the small size of the Phoenix downtown, I'm inclined to believe there is a fifth reason:  the proximity of Sky Harbor International Airport.  I'd have to do much research into how much of a factor the airport is in the size of downtown buildings, but it seems that from what reading I've done that it does play a sizable role in keeping the buildings downtown short.  Panchitaville 03:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Downtown Neighborhood 

message: If anybody's interested, I've proposed a WikiProject for the state of Arizona.  You can check it out at Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List of proposed projects#Arizona. ONEder Boy 04:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject 

message: KXXT as an Air America station was just starting to be profitable when republicans decided to buy out the station to put another Christian Radio station on the air in a market that already had 7 such stations.  
:"Recently, conservatives have purchased several stations broadcasting Air America broadcasts and changed the programming. In Phoenix and West Virginia, right-wing Christian groups bought out Air America affiliate stations and converted to Christian formats. In Missoula, Montana, a station switched from Air America to music programming “because advertisers were being intimidated by the right wing,” 
The former staff of KXXT, led mainly by morning host Dr. Mike Newcomb, led an Internet pledge drive to get AAR back on the air; national AAR founder Sheldon Drobny also made a substantial investment; a lease was signed on 1480 KPHX (formerly All-Comedy Radio and "Music of Your Life" formats). Their first day on the air was April 3.--Msr69er 19:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  KXXT Bought out in Fundie Campaign to Shut down Air America 

message: Not everthing on a .gov is true, or a great source.  A city engages in advertising too.  "Tempe boasts a vibrant economy, liveable neighborhoods, and the Valley's most dynamic downtown."  As a resident of Tempe I agree with that statement, but I also recognize that it is an opinion - none of it a verifiable fact.  This article could use a cleanup.
:Agreed. But information about Tempe belongs in the Tempe, Arizona article. A short reference and links to the articles about surrounding cities suffices for this article. Phoenix is eager to present itself as the 5th largest city in the United States - at that size there should be plenty to write about in an article about the city without having to "pad" it with extraneous information about other cities that have their own articles.
::See: peacock words.--Loodog 00:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some of the language in this article sounds like a brochure from the city of commerce 

message: I've noticed that the two killers here in Phoenix, both the Baseline Killer and the Serial Shooter, have been getting some coverage on some of the major news networks.  Shouldn't there be some sort of mention in the article about them? ONEder Boy 03:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not appropriate here. Check the articles on other cities to see if they have news of the latest crimewave.  Perhaps you would like to add something to Wikinews.  --Blainster 14:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The two killers? 

message: Speaking between strictly city limits that is correct. I believe some kind of personal note could be added there. The largest Metropolitan Capital Area would be Atlanta Boston at roughly 5.5 million 7.4 million.--Loodog 04:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like many older east-coast cities, Boston is significantly unrepresented by its city proper population (559,000) since its artificially small boundaries were set by the presense of surrounding communities.  Interestingly enough, by metro area, Atlanta wins 4.9 mil vs. 4.4 mil, but CSA, Boston is 35% larger.  You can also rank by urban areas, in which case Boston is larger 4 million to 3.5.  It's all a matter of granularity and inclusiveness.  As I understand it, CSA is more the economic pull of an area, urban area is people within contiguously urbanized land, and metro area is more like including commuter belt.--Loodog 22:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phoenix Largest capital city in America 

message: I've added a cleanup notice to the media section of this article. I found the listing of radio stations to be very ineffective and difficult to read. I cleaned it up somewhat (removing most of the stations, since they're listed on List of radio stations in Arizona) but it still isn't great. I think it's a fair bit easier to read now, but hopefully a more experienced wikipedian will come along and make it better. 70.162.15.97 23:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted your edits to the media section. Changing these to list format is unacceptable, as wiki articles should be written preferably in prose format, not as a collection of lists. It is acceptable to have a list in a separate article and link to that list, though. Maybe the list of radio stations is too long, which is the reason for the list. But the television stations should be written out as the prose format instead, since there are not that many of them. Dr. Cash 00:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Phoenix has six neighborhoods:
*Downtown
*West Phoenix
*North/Northwest Phoenix
*Southwest Phoenix
*South Phoenix
*Ahwatukee
*East side
I, hereby, recommend that another category would be created:
Northeast - Paradise_Valley - Shea Boulevard
Thank You.
:Well, PV is part of the MSA, and not Phoenix proper.  Just like EV (East Valley) designation includes many other cities, but maybe not Phoenix (although many people in the East Side will say they're EV).
:So, there should be a link to the MSA near the top (does this article exist?), because if you're looking to learn something about the 'city' before moving here, you'll often end up in the MSA, and not Phx proper.  Somewhere like PV/Scottsdale, Mesa/Gilbert/Chandler, Sun City West, Tempe/'Tukee, etc, depending on what you're looking for.
:~ender 2007-02-05 21:34:MST —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.110.171.226 (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neighborhoods

message: I rewrote and reorganized the most of the History section and placed it at User:LtGen/PhoenixHistory. Please review it and make suggestions before it is placed on the main page (I will wait a few weeks before going forward). LtGen 08:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks a heck of a lot better than what was there! Good work! I replaced the existing history section with the new text, with a minor change to your reference format ('retrieved on' instead of 'accessed on'). Eventually, we should start a History of Phoenix article, and add more details. Dr. Cash 06:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  City History Update 

message: An annon. user changed the demographic percentages as of today. User did not leave any notes or references. This article may need to be reverted.
*forgot to sign. Cascadia 19:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes to demographic percentages 

message: It was getting really cluttered here, so I archived the talk page. Cascadia 02:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived Talk Page 

message: There were some edits recently that took out "Phoenix natives and residents are referred to as Phoenicians." from the top of the article. Their reasons are that they've never been called that, so it must be wrong. I disagree. I, too, lived in Phoenix most of my life, and I have been called a Phoenician and I call others Phoenicians. Regardless if someone has or has not experienced being called a Phoenician, I believe it should be in the article. Any thoughts? LtGen 12:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too am a Phonecian. Local news outlets consistantly use this term as well (TV, Newspapers, etc.). Just as folk from Seattle are called Seattleites, folks from Phoenix are called Phonecians. Cascadia 20:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just out of curiosity, how does one pronounce this?  Is it just like the "Phoenician" from Phoenicia?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DerRichter (talk • contribs) 03:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry about not signing that--DerRichter (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Phoenician 

message: Some has changed the intro recently and I reverted it.  My reasons:
#Tenth largest in area is an obscure piece of trivia for an introductory paragraph.  I could see this being relevant to the top 3, but not down here at the 10th.
#"Population within city limits" is a far more obfuscated way to say "city proper population", which is what is assumed when just writing "population" anyway.  In general, "metro area" or "MSA" is written when referring to the population extending beyond city limits, as it is in this article.
#"Only 5 larger" is a more roundabout way of saying "sixth-largest".--Loodog 20:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro 

message: I seem to be in an edit war over the monthly temperature data presented in the article. Not that it's all that big of a deal, but I want to make sure these data are accurate and up-to-date. An anonymous editor has changed the temps based on info found on USA Today, the Weather Channel and AZ Central. That is fine, as those are verifiable sources; however, they are not the official keepers of climate data. Each of those sources claim to get the data from the National Climatic Data Center, but the NCIC wants payment to access their data (so the accuracy of the websites' info cannot be verified).
I checked with the National Weather Service's website here where you can request the monthly climate summaries for each month (you must click on each month individually). Within the report, each month's official average high/low temps are listed. These temps correspond to the temps originally listed on the page (before the anonymous edits). In addition, I came across the Western Regional Climate Center (a division of NCDC), which reports the official NCDC normal temperatures here; once again, these data correspond to the original numbers listed on the page.
And so I need to avoid the 3RR and not change the temperature data again, but I ask that we use the official first-hand data listed in my references above as the source of the temperature data for Phoenix. I suspect that the numbers used by the sites mentioned by the anonymous editor are using outdated data. (Eight of the ten hottest years on record were in the past two decades; older data sets might miss this period.) -Nicktalk 06:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone is interested in this, I just heard back from the Arizona State Climatologist, who explained why the temperatures seem off. The data that are currently listed on the chart of monthly high/low temperatures on the NCDC website is incorrect. The National Climactic Data Center made an error when they released the 1971-2000 data set. They issued an updated set of numbers a few months later, but the .pdf on their website never changed. The correct monthly data is here, and the climatologist will contact NCDC and alert them that the old data is still on the website. Apparently, there is a corrected data set on their site that explains this, but I can only access it from my campus (NCDC data is free to .edu IP addresses). I will try to find it in the next few days, then change the article accordingly, citing the updated numbers. -Nicktalk 02:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate Data - help/comments? 

message: Listed as 1086 ft (33m) this is clearly an error, perhaps 331m? however further down the article "It lies at a mean elevation of 1,117 feet (340 m)" perhaps a consensus needs to be reached here, maybe some research into official figures. 81.76.85.240 10:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected the infobox to match the Geography section, which is correct according to the US Geological Survey. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 14:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the correction, perhaps a link to your USGS source might be useful, as this link at the foot of the article does not agree: http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=179:3:::NO::P3_FID:44784 perhaps this is still a point of contention... 91.105.177.32 21:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elevation 

message: I know it sounds odd to "estimate" a population of about four million to specific numbers.  However, the USCensus Bureau gives this specific number with its estimate, as can be seen here.  Remember that Wikipedia reports information, not deciding it: if our reliable source reports something, we must go with it.  Nyttend 20:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Census estimates 

message: I am considering adding information on many popular public places and the most common areas to visit in Phoenix. I know all of them and know a lot about all of them. However, does anyone have any problem with this before I start? Lormos 04:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As always, please be careful to source them.  Nyttend 12:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on popular public places 

message: So, the section on geographic size is ludicrous. Phoenix is 515 sq. miles. New York City is 469 sq. miles, Philadelphia is 143 sq. miles, and Miami is 57 sq. miles. These three combine to 669 sq. miles. Very incorrect. Also, why these three cities? Seems pretty random. If you used Philadelphia, Miami and Boston, it would be a true statement, however, how that that help anymore? It would suffice to say that it is extremely large. I changed it, but feel free to make further changes.
:combined are only 45 miles sq.? Philadelphia and Miami together are less than 10% the size of NYC?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.1.118 (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gegraphical comparisons 

message: Watching Independent Lens right now on PBS. Why is there no mention of the rash of hate crimes Phoenix experienced after 9-11, i.e. the Frank Roque shootings? Come on, people. Come on. Really. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 06:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because this was a nationwide phenomenon and not particularly notable in the history of the city.--Loodog (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and no. Phoenix had a LOT more than other places. Other cities are mentioned briefly but the special focused on Phoenix because of this. And it needs to be in the article. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It needs to be mentioned in the article. The city even has several marble memorials dedicated to the shooting victims. Add it to the article and stop trying to minimalize it. --67.189.16.236 (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, those shootings happened in Mesa, not Phoenix. It belongs in the Mesa article, not this one. Plus, I dispute the fact that it happened "a LOT more" -- there were actually very few such murders nationwide, and just because two happened in one particular area doesn't mean that it happened "a lot". -Nicktalk 20:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-9-11 white trash shootings at middle-easterners 

message: Would like to request a new article from you Phoenixians:
Media in Maricopa County is a designated market area (DMA; MSA-Metropolitan Service or Statistical Area) or media market that includes print media (newspapers and magazines) and broadcast media (radio and television) in Maricopa County, Arizona.
Can you do it? ~ WikiDon (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Media in the Phoenix DMA" sounds good.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Request: Media in Maricopa County 

message: With all due respect, I think the statement in the article "It is the region's primary political, cultural, economic, financial, technological, and transportation center." is perhaps giving the city a little too much credit.  Unless the "region" they are specifying is only encompassed by the state of Arizona, I would say that on some of these fronts Phoenix would be secondary to Denver, and if you are including California, obviously almost the entire statement goes out the window.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.40.194 (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phoenix "Primary Center" 

message: This site very clearly outlines that Phoenix had a peak growth rate from 1950-1960 and has continued to have very rapid growth from then on.  However, it doesn't discuss the cause of the growth at all.  What is the cause?  Was it driven by economic opportunity?  By an influx of retirees?  What is driving all the growth?  This is a really serious omission in the article.  Cazort (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of growth 

message: The section about demographics is not clear. Some of the percentages do not match within the section.
ICE77 (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics section not clear 

message: I am somwhat new here so please excuse my lack of info on how to do things on this site.  If you go to the City of Chicago article you will see the flag.  Click on the word "flag" and it takes you to the ariticle and info about the City of Chicago flag.  I was wondering if anyone has any objection to doing the same for the City of Phoenix?  I have a lot of info about the flag and it was named the 4th best flag out of any city in the country.  So does anyone have any issues with this and if anyone could tell me how I go about starting this it would be appreciated. Oak999 (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  City of Phoenix flag 

message: Arizona Historical Museum and Fleischer Museum are not located within the Phoenix city limts and therefore should not be listed in the article undering the 'museums' heading. This article states the museums are in the Valley, and the Valley covers Phoenix and it's suburbs. Articles for cities like Las Vegas, New York, Chicago, or San Francisco do not include suburban museums as the article is about the city proper. Whether this is right or wrong is neither here nor there, but Phoenix must be kept to the same standard. I remember some museums being added under the Las Vegas article, then being removed later because, although they were in suburban Las Vegas such as near the Strip, they were actually not in Las Vegas proper so they were removed. Only the ones in the Las Vegas city limits remained. The Phoenix article must be kept to this same standard and any museums not in Phoenix proper must not be included in the article unless a decision is made to incorporate suburban attractions into city articles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muesums 

message: What do editors feel about possibly merging/redirecting the List of people from the Phoenix metropolitan area page into :Category:People from Phoenix, Arizona? I think that this solution would be far easier to maintain, as it would be up to individual editors of biographical articles to add/delete them to/from the category, and it would reduce the vandalism we get on the list page from anonymous kiddies adding themselves and their high school friends to the page. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it makes a lot of sense.  Given the size of the list (and the category) it is hard to maintain it as a whole; far simpler for the maintainers of the individual articles to decide if the categorization makes sense.  Hopefully it'll help keep head-scratchers like trying to claim folks like Wayne Gretzky are "from" Phoenix .. Shereth 22:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: merged. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of notable people 

message: What does everyone think about putting together a photo collage for the infobox? (See Milwaukee and New York City for examples.) On many of the city articles that I watch, there are debates over what image to use as the infobox image. I think these collages do a good job of being descriptive and pleasing. -Nicktalk 06:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a great idea.  It'd help with the somewhat constant swapping of the photo to someone's favorite skyline picture (truth be told I'm not real fond of the current one).  Naturally a decision will have to be made as to the format of the collage - most of them seem to have a "main" photo with a grouping of secondary images.  It'd make sense for the "primary" photo to be of Downtown (again I'd prefer to see a better shot than the existing photo), with Uptown as one of the secondaries ( is not a bad image).  At least one of the images should incorporate Camelback Mountain.  I'm not sure what else would be good.  State capitol building?  Couple of the Phoenix Points of Pride would make sense, but I'm not sure which.  Tovrea Castle?  St. Mary's Basilica?  If someone can think of a landmark that'd make sense but we don't have an image I can see about snapping a photo of it for us. Shereth 14:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Photo 

message: I think that "Phoenix" should redirect to this article. When you search San Francisco, you get San Francisco, when you search Los Angeles, you get Los Angeles, when you search San Diego, you get San Diego... why is the fifth biggest city in America not considered noteworthy enough to be the main "Phoenix" article?J'onn J'onzz (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Already discussed elsewhere. I don't like this American-centric attitude, as many cultures take "Phoenix" to be the BIRD. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 02:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: No city motto? I'm sure it has one, it must, so why isn't it here?110.32.142.139 (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  City Motto 

message: I've removed the following blurb from the sports section, as it is unsourced:
:As of 2007 Phoenix is the largest North American city not to contain a team in any of the four tiers of professional soccer. There is a plan to try to bring Major League Soccer to the city in the shape of the proposed team Phoenix Rising. Phoenix is currently one of thirteen cities across the United States and Canada that are aiming to claim one of two places scheduled to be made available through expansion before 2011. The plan currently includes a suggested $150 million 25,000-seat soccer specific stadium with a retractable roof.
I am unable to find any sources anywhere via google that MLS is expanding to the Phoenix area, and the Phoenix Rising "article" is a disambiguation page that makes no mention of an MLS team. Furthermore, this press release (from 4/10/2006) states, "Phoenix: We've had good success on the Soccer United Marketing side of our business with Mexican national team matches in Phoenix, but we do not have any plans to expand the market in the near future. Phoenix-area native Greg Vanney and Robin Fraser, who recently moved to Phoenix, are good resources when we inquire about Phoenix."
If there is talk in the future about MLS expansion to PHX, then it can be properly sourced and added, but as of right now, this is speculation. WTF (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  MLS: Phoenix Rising 

message: I noticed that there is no mention of the large volume of electronic music performances.  Phoenix, AZ being number two in the U.S.A.
208.79.15.130 (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electronic Music Community 

message: The high rate of kidnapping in Phoenix is attributed as behind popular support of Arizona's SB1070. I've added a paragraph with some quotes about Phoenix ("Kidnapping capital of the USA") and statistics. SamatJain (talk) 09:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that McCain's claim belongs in the article, as it is completely not verified, and the notorious kidnapping centers of South America and Africa make me doubt that Phoenix is #2 in the world. -Nicktalk 16:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference for that quote mentions that McCain's claim is not verifiable, because it doesn't appear other countries report kidnapping statistics. My point in including it was to drive home the point the problem is serious and on the minds of many people, and has been a driving force for SB 1070. That said, I'm not sure that point should be in this article either—it probably belongs more in the SB 1070 article than the Phoenix one. It'd be better if a Phoenix native rewrote that paragraph citying better references, I merely included it to summarize my own research. —SamatJain (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kidnapping & crime 

message: Undoubtedly true, but fairly trivial. I deleted [], another editor reverted [].  If other editors feel strongly that it is an important fact about Phoenix that readers are likely going to be looking for, then I could understand leaving it in the article... but in the body, in the population or demographics section, not the lead.  
WP:Lead Section says "...The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects...The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable... The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic..."
I don't know that there could be a compelling reason to keep Phoenix being the largest state capital in the lead, but not in the body of the article. That really should be reversed. Jd2718 (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most populous state capital? 

message: "The history of Phoenix as a city begins with Jack Swilling, an American Civil War veteran who had come west to seek wealth in the 1850s..."
So... he fought the Civil War in the 1840s?! GeneCallahan (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil War Veteran? 

message: The population for Phoenix listed is 1,445,632 as per the 2010 census. However, the official census information for 2010 is being released this month, with Arizona and Pennsylvania coming out later this week with several other states. It's not even out yet, and the source listed is an article from the Philadelphia Inquirer about population growth in Philly from 2000 to 2009, which states neither Phoenix's population, nor Philadelphia's 2010 population. It's a made-up population (and rank) citing an non-relevant source, that was created , in all likelihood, by a Philadelphia resident who prematurely claimed that it had passed Phoenix in population.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.199.228 (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  2010 census population 

message: This is, by far, one of the worst written entries on Wikipedia.  I was going to start corrected some of the issues, but I really don't have the time.  Hopefully, whoever reads this has some time to sit down and fix the page.
Note: This is not my comment.  This statement was removed from the top of the templates to this space on the talk page, and the  tag was removed. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: Undoubtedly true, but fairly trivial. I deleted [], another editor reverted [].  If other editors feel strongly that it is an important fact about Phoenix that readers are likely going to be looking for, then I could understand leaving it in the article... but in the body, in the population or demographics section, not the lead.  
WP:Lead Section says "...The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects...The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable... The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic..."
I don't know that there could be a compelling reason to keep Phoenix being the largest state capital in the lead, but not in the body of the article. That really should be reversed. Jd2718 (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most populous state capital? 

message: Shouldn't the name of this article be simply "Phoenix" rather than "Phoenix, Arizona"? Most large cities do not include the state in the title of the article. Phoenix is the sixth largest city in the US.75.213.177.19 (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a long discussion about this a year or two ago, (all US cities used to be City, State) and a compromise was that larger ones that appear on a list by the AP Stylebook as not needing the state wouldn't have the state in the article's title, and the rest would. The list was fairly short, but it served as a good limit on how many of these discussions would take place. My guess is Phoenix wasn't on the list. AlexiusHoratius 22:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Phoenix is on the list, but Phoenix is also a mythological bird. In the context of news articles, it's usually obvious that you're talking about the city, but Wikipedia article titles have no room for larger context. The second requirement for titling without a state is that a city has a generally unique name. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes this is true. However, there could also be a disambiguation page with all the other uses of Phoenix linked from this one. Clearly, in 2012, the main usage of the word is for the city, not the mythological bird.98.229.49.151 (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of article 

message: I fixed links to Cactus and Grapefruit Leagues in spring training and fixed back links to point to Arizona and Florida.  Can not find any problem with All American Cities link.  In fact there is no mention any longer to All American City in the article.  Removed broken link Wildbot template. :- ) DCS 01:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wildbot Broken Links 

message: This article quotes John McCain stating that Phoenix is the number 2 kidnapping capital in the world. It's fine to quote him, but the statement is false. Until just now, the quote was sourced with an article title "McCain falsely claims Phoenix is kidnapping capital" without stating the quote is false, meaning that Wikipedia contained and was spreading falsehoods.
I consider it embarrassing that Wikipedia quoted a false statement for so long without saying it is false. We need to be better than the usually unquestioning US media. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  McCain's falsehood and our unquestioning report of it 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  File:JustinUpton.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion 

message: Reference #41 gives info for hours of sunlight, but the link says it's for sunlight in Boise, not Phoenix. Furthermore, the hours in the citation are not consistent with those in the table on Wikipedia. What's going on here? —Will(B) 15:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I found The Weather Channel's statistics page for Phoenix and replaced it. —Will(B) 16:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate data for Boise? 

message: New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, and Dallas, are all in the top ten largest cities and none of them are referred to as city and state.  So why is Phoenix (6th largest city in the U.S.) listed by city and state?  I think there should be consistency and whoever has the power to change the title should do so immediately.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superkid913 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggest that you do not change title until consensus is reached. I have reverted your "edit", until such time there is an agreement. Please also remember to sign your posts on the Talk page. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Further comment. There are other "Phoenix"s of various spellings in the United States. My view is to keep "Arizona" in the title. David J Johnson (talk) 11:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend no change. "Phoenix, Arizona" is fine. Rjensen (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change title to simply "Phoenix" 

message: Climate data in the weather box is wrong. It's showing a record high temperature of 198F and low of -24F currently.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.197.38 (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Record high of 198? 

message: Hi.  I'm going through the page, in an attempt to conform it to the wikiproject cities guidelines.  In attempting to create the page "History of Phoenix, Arizona" per those guidelines, it keeps bringing me back to the history section on the main Phoenix, Arizona page.  Any ideas on how to correct this?  If so, please let me know, I'll create the page, and then populate it.  Onel5969 (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ok I fixed it. try again.   We really need a separate article on Phoenix History--thefre is plenty of it and we have good scholarly books to use. Rjensen (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  How did you do it?  Anyway, I'll move most of the history stuff over to the history page, and leave a summary on this page.  Onel5969 (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I put the bulked up history onto the history page, go check it out.  Fleshed it out a bit, and will continue to work on it over the next week or so.  Edited the history on this page and cut it way back.  Would love to hear your comments.  Also, I've had this article under peer review and have been working on it.  What do you think about putting this for FA status? Onel5969 (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll pay some attention to the history page. The history section has a major weakness, written from a mediocre/poor anonymous city site that is not at all critical nor familiar with the scholarship. It gives very minor episodes more space than major events. That is easy enough to fix using the modern histories by Johnson, Luckingham, and VanderMeer. Rjensen (talk) 07:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, if you want to split up the sections, that would be fine with me. That way we can work one area, then review the other's work in the other.  [Excellent tightening last night, by the way]  Onel5969 (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Phoenix, Arizona 

message: , , , and .  Just wanted to thank all of you for the effort you put forth in upgrading this article and let you know I just nominated it for FA status.Onel5969 (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks and best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks-FA Nomination 

message: *MOS:LEAD & WP:LEADLENGTH, one concern raised was the length of the lead.  Six paragraphs at the moment, the MOS suggests that, for an article of this length, three or four paragraphs should be adequate.  It doesn't say how long they should be mind you!
:
*MOS:DASH I fixed a bunch of incorrectly used spaced hyphens, there's an easy-to-use script out there which I use (it's somewhere in my monobook.js) and it's always good practice to run this over anything before nominating it at a featured process.
*WP:CITESTYLE try to use a consistent dating format, e.g. make sure all publication dates are in the same format, be it mdy, dmy, or even yyyy-mm-dd.  Make sure all retrieval dates are in the same format.  Also, ensure that fields in citations such as publisher and work are used correctly as they render differently in the references, and make sure that author name styling is consistent, e.g. Last, First or First Last, but always consistent across the whole article.
: —  (think I got this.  Went through each citation and the dates and author sequence are seem to all be consistent)
*WP:FUR fair use, per one of the images that Nikki has noted, :File:Her Secret Is Patience Phoenix Sculpture.jpg, this is a fair use image and for it to be allowed to be used in a Wikipedia article, it needs its own fair use rationale, much like this one already does for the use in Her Secret Is Patience article and the Janet Echelman article (although it's not used there).  It would be difficult to think of a fair use reason to include this image in an article about Phoenix.
: — : As I've said, I'm knew to this.  Didn't know about the FUR rationale, I thought that if a picture was on Wiki, I could use it.  Will be attentive to this in the future.  For now, I've removed the pic.
*WP:PARAPHRASE close paraphrasing is just something that you have to trawl through and do your best to avoid.  Nikki's given you a couple of examples, and inevitably in an article of this length and age, these things creep in over time.  The onus is on the nominator(s) to check that all the information being referenced by a citation is (a) in the citation and (b) not closely paraphrased.
These things sprang to mind immediately upon reading the article and Nikki's comments, I'm happy to conduct a more thorough para-by-para review.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Fundamentals

message: *Nikki has mentioned image captions.  I'm not certain myself why you've adopted centrally-aligned captions, it looks a little odd to me, not in keeping with most of the featured material I'm aware of.  Moreover, when writing captions, punctuation is required per a regular sentence, in other words if the caption is a complete sentence, it should use a period, whereas "notes", such as "Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona, 1908." should not.
:  —  Although, to be honest, I was attempting to "be bold" per Wikipedia:Be bold.  I noticed that on the infobox pictures, the captions are automatically centered, which to my eye, was more stylish.  I reasoned that most photo captions are not done this way since it is an extra step, which most folks wouldn't take.  Since it didn't detract from either the veracity or content of the article, and was merely a matter of style, I went for it.  Regardless, I've reverted all the captions to left align.  Also corrected all the capitalization and "sentence" issues (again, I think, might have missed something).
*Another note from Nikki related to over-linking and over-referencing.  The former, relating to wikilinks, is usually down to the fact that the same article is linked more than once.  In my experience, I've tended to try to link items once and once only, on their first occurrence.  However, for items in sortable tables or references, I've found this tends to be more flexible.  The latter is when too many (unnecessary) references are used to cite a specific fact.  I see on this article that almost always two references are used for each citation, is that absolutely necessary?
:Overlinking  —    —  per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Overlinking and underlinking
:Over-referencing  —  , I'm sorry, I didn't realize that too many sources were a bad thing.  However, looking at Nikki's remarks, I don't see where she references "over-referencing" (pun intended)... in her first point she says, "spots lacking needed citations", and in her second point she says, "Inconsistent and incomplete citations".  I'll be more than happy to go through and reduce citations, but when I look on other FA City pages (e.g. Boston and Cleveland) I notice that they have multiple citations in several locations.  I'll seek your direction on this.
*WP:DATERANGE suggests that, for year ranges for example, the century need not be repeated if its the same, i.e. "1960–1961" should be "1960–61".
: —    —  (I think I got all of them)
*The structure of several sections is weak in my opinion.  Take for instance the Sport section.  It looks a little like a bullet list without the bullets, 12 very short paragraphs, like being hit with a volley of factoids, rather than the excellent prose which FA demands.
*A minor WP:ACCESS issue, we should consider those viewing Wikipedia with screen-readers, which is usually no problem for prose, but for more technical markup such as tables, where rows and columns start is helpful to such readers.  We have MOS:DTT which asks us to denote the "scope" of various cells, whether they be "row" or "col" headers.  The markup is simple and provides a much better browsing experience for those with screen-readers.
*Consistency, for example you use both "US" and "U.S." in the article to denote United States.  Generally this should be a case of pick one and stick with it.
:  —  although this was hard.  Only due to the fact that there were so few times I used either one.  Hopefully I got all of them and they all read U.S. now.  The only time I didn't change them are in instances such as US Air, where the corporation's name doesn't use U.S., and if the abbreviation was used in a title or quote, e.g. "kidnapping capital of the USA".
*Overcapitalisation is also a common problem, e.g. "Office Building – Downtown Phoenix" why is Building capitalised?  "Semi-Professional and Amateur Clubs" should be "Semi-professional and amateur clubs".
:  — Onel5969 (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: —  Hopefully I pass muster.  Went through each citation, made sure each "web" source had at least the link, publisher, title and access date (author, if there was one).  The rest (book and journal citations) looked solid.
*Reliability of sources.  Nikki also had reservations over the quality of some of the sources used.  Unfortunately it wasn't clear which in particular, perhaps if you can tap away at some of the problems noted above, Nikki will be good enough to highlight some of the troublesome ones.
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Wow.  Thanks for all your input.  I know that Gareth asked you to lend a hand, and you certainly have gone above and beyond.  I should have everything you mention cleaned up within 3-4 days.  My concern, as Nikki also notes on the FAC page, is reviewing all the info for paraphrasing closeness.  That could take awhile, but I intend to slog through it.  I think if she had been as specific as you were, it wouldn't have been so discouraging.  But with her comments, I wasn't even sure where to start.  I'm new to this, and wouldn't even have nominated it for FA, except I was encouraged to do so in the peer review.Onel5969 (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries.  If anything I've said is unclear, leave me a message.  FAC can be an extremely unfriendly and unhelpful place, but don't be discouraged.  Remember there's no time limit! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: More, technical specifics