This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Wondering how to edit this U.S. City Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. Cities standards might help.

In the history part, someone put that pheonix was "EVEN" smaller than Kansas City, MO in 1950. This is offensive to someone living there, saying that Kansas City is not a big or important city, when it is one of the largest in the united states, and one of it's most important. I removed "even" from the paragraph for that very reason.

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

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)

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)

I think the probelem we're facing is that based on the population and growth estimates from the census, Phoenix has probably surpassed Philly in population as of this moment (November 2005). But unfortunately, there won't be official 2005 estimates for a while. So do we A: report the most recent (but perhaps obsolete) data, or B: report speculative data? I would vote for reporting only information for which we have proof, but perhaps we could note that the rankings are likely to change (or perhaps that Phoenix is "tied for 5th" with Philly. Nick 02:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

The City of Phoenix already cites Phoenix as being the 5th largest city. Click here. This seems to be a reliable enough source to make the change, since it is a government website.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Troublechild was clearly a vandal entry, as a google search pointed out. I removed it. Combuchan 23:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I realize that you people last talked about Troublechild over a year ago, and that you have moved on and probably don't care, but I think it necessary to point out that I did a Google search of "Troublechild in Phoenix", and on more than one result page, I am given information that Troublechild is a rapper from Phoenix. So it was not a vandal entry after all. I found Trouble child here: http://listofnotableresidentsofphoenix.quickseek.com/, as the last name under "Entertainment". Walkinglikeahuricane 11:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

---

Although Phoenix is now the 5th larest city, its highly unlikely it will pass Houston. Houston has been quoted "The Fastest Growing City in America" and it is predicted that it will pass Chicago and claim the number 3 spot in the Top 10 Largest Cities in America in 2010 Census. It has now a little over 2 million people, and at this rate, Phoen will not be able to pass in at least...never. I don't think Chicago will have its arms crossed either on this one.

---

I live in Phoenix, but am currently in Houston on a business trip. Houston is hot, and humid. Blech! There is nothing worse than humidity, something Phoenix is famous for not having. Whatever the case, expect Phoenix to easily take out Houston in the list.

---

Houston being the fastest growing city is an old designation. APlease see the Wikipedia page for Houston, and the comments there.

---

Most of this info about population is largely speculation (e.g. saying that Phoenix will move past Chicago by 2020, or other statements), and as such, really don't belong in an encyclopedia. The only thing we should really be offering are the actual details of the population size and makeup; where the city currently stands in relation to other cities. It is perhaps among the fastest growing cities in the US, but it is not "the fastest", which I believe there's a lot of speculation there, too (Las Vegas, Houston?). Dr. Cash 22:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Phoenix was declared the second fastest growing city in the US, just behind Las Vegas, and they will stop growing very soon.

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

This guy obviously got fired from a job in Phoenix for drinking on the job. A Hazard? Please tell me no one takes this seriously.

While this is mainly just my opinion, and so I can understand that it does not seem to belong on the main page, as someone that lives in Phoenix as a result of a court allowed move away of my kids, I think that we really should place some sort of HAZARD warning on the main page of the Phoenix entry. Phoenix is just about the worst city to live in. Boring. Few arts. Rotten schools. Non-diverse population. Chain restaurants. Chain stores. No interesting local stores or restaurants. VERY MONEY DRIVEN. WAY TOO HOT. (It is a dry heave). Very few jobs in interesting fields. Terrible place for most engineers in that there are few jobs and they are far, very far away.

If you are wealthy and can afford the A/C and can afford a Hummer and can afford to eat at the top top restaurants and can afford to fly away for you winter and summer and spring vacation, then Phoenix is the town for you.

Life here is possible only because of the nation's largest nuclear power plant located 30 miles outside of town.

Not quite: its more like 40 miles away and nearly 30% of its power goes to California. -- Blainster 17:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina revealed that Phoenix has very limited options for evacuation. The main freeways will not be able to handle the traffic.

Rates only behind Australia for skin cancer.

I am not a troll or a spammer -- I am sincere in my beliefs -- I didn't post this on the main page, but I do think a PSA warning is required for this "town" -- User:71.39.78.68 24 December, 2005

That's Just Silly

Phoenix is a great city. I don't think we should be judging cities by their climate. Worrying about Palo Verde blowing up or whatever is silly as well; has it ever happened before? What, are we worried that it'll be the subject of a terrorist attack? Terrorists aren't stupid. Just because it's big doesn't mean they'll chose it over nuclear plants in more "famous" cities. The statement that life there is only possible because of it is, again, silly. And "money-driven"? Last time I checked, the whole world is money-driven. And if you think the population isn't diverse, and the whole place is filled with chain businesses, you're wrong. Phoenix is a wonderfully cultural city. Yes, the schools suck. But large strides are, indeed, being made. I know everybody gets upset about how hot it is there, but you know what I think? Darwin at work. If one can't take the heat, one can get out of the gene pool. I can't think of anywhere I'd rather live than Phoenix.-- 68.230.68.120 03:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Too hot? yes.

Money driven? Not nearly as much as, say, New York City (or any large city).

Nothing cultural? I've taken field trips that drove 5 hours (one way) just to see some of the culture in Phoenix. The Heard Museum and the Science Museum are both fabulous for kids.

Boring? Besides the above, you have major and minor league sports teams (I highly recommend you check out a minor-league baseball game- it's much more fun than major league and tickets are dirt cheap. The kids'll love it, even if they don't like sports, which I don't). They even have a *hockey* team.

Non-diverse population? Only if your only definition of "diverse" is "large black population" (which there doesn't seem to be). Because it's one of the fastest growing cities in the country, it has people from all sorts of backgrounds, plus a very large hispanic and significant Native American population.

No Jobs? A thirty second google showed 30 new *engineering* jobs posted on a single job site just today. In addition, Honeywell's main HQ is there, Boeing has a plant, GE, Motorola, and more.

As for limited options for evacuation- well, I don't think there is a single major american city that wouldn't fall victim to this criticism. Heck- you can't drive in or out of NYC even when there isn't a natural disaster.

And why the heck would you want to fly away for your winter vacation when everybody else is flying *into* PHX for that time of year.

Will I ever live in Phoenix? Probably not (as I already admitted, it's too hot)- but it's not nearly as bad as this person wants to think. -- User:128.187.0.164 9 March, 2006

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)

Would you mind elaborating on which sections need attention? Dr. Cash 05:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the cleanup tag -- I apologize for the misclasification Adhall 13:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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. - Nick ^talk 03:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The Phil Gordon link in the box is broken, as it links to the wrong Phil Gordon. Simon12 13:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks for catching that. I've made it into a red link. - Will Beback 21:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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. - Nick ^talk 01:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There has been a change on one of the radio stations in the AM, KPHX 1480 is no longer All Comedy Radio is some other type Skindrafter

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)

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)

• I'm not sure. The FAA has had a lot to say about buildings in the flight path, but most of those seem to be in Tempe. I'd suspect that research into the flight patterns from the FAA might clarify. Wikibofh_{( talk)} 03:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I did see an article in the paper last week indicating that Phoenix was capping building sizes to protect Sky Harbor, so it would seem you're right. :) Wikibofh_{( talk)} 15:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• The lack of a large amount of very tall skyscrapers might also have something to do with the heat. Because temperatures frequently top 110-120° F in the summertime, and heat rises, building glass skyscrapers downtown would make such buildings quite uncomfortable in the summer months, or at least raise the cost of cooling the structures. Dr. Cash 21:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

______________________ I was the person that created the section about Phoenix's downtown and why it is so small. Although superficially it seems obvious to consider the presence of the nearby airport for Phoenix's paltry skyline, upon closer inspection of the specific building height limitations, the airport is not the culprit at all. The FAA, because of the envelope necessary for emergency aircraft departures to the west, has a sliding height limit. Imagine, if you will, a sloping plane that rises as you move west, away from the runways. This height limitation is about 450 feet above ground level on the east side of downtown, about 550 feet along Central Avenue (which bisects the middle of downtown Phoenix), and rises to about 650 feet on the west side of downtown.

Then you must consider that Phoenix only has two buildings over 400 feet in the entire city, and both were built over thirty years ago. Clearly, if there was that much demand for skyscrapers in Phoenix, we'd have a plethora of tall buildings pushing the 500 to 550-foot barrier downtown along Central, with developers clamoring for more. See Vancouver and San Diego especially as good examples of what cities look like when they have a 500 foot height limit. We have not had that type of demand until very recently.

Could you make the argument that the height limit affects taller skyscrapers over 500 feet? Sure - the city will not even entertain any proposal that violates the FAA-protected airspace downtown. But, further north, the FAA's limitation falls away. Just recently, we had twin 685-foot towers proposed at Thomas and Central, which is a few miles north of downtown. So, even this argument is somewhat flawed.

The airport is a red herring. The real culprits are those I outlined in my article - the lack of local big headquarters operations, the late arrival of Phoenix to big city leagues when sprawl in America is king, the tiny nature of the city before World War II, and so on. As for the heat being a factor, look at all of the massive skyscrapers being built in Dubai, which is just as hot as Phoenix. No, that's not the problem either.

--Donald M. Burns,_______________________

Actually, the lack of tall buildings stems from a well-known local law limiting the height of buildings in most areas except under either special permit, or in areas where lobbying have been effective in removing the restriction. Buildings in the Downtown Core (inside the innerloop) are also limited directly by the FAA, as they are in and near the flight-paths of jetliners approaching and departing PHX. If I recall correctly, the law was put on the books years ago to prevent 'urbanization', during the anti-urbanization movements of mid-20th century. I would have to do additonal research to point the exact law, but it is well known, and was recently cited during the fight over the attempt to build a Trump Tower in the Camelback District. Cascadia 19:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats called ZONING. Building heights are restricted in the Camelback Corridor because the area is largely residential. For structures along Central Avenue North of Roosevelt, FAA restrictions fall away and building height is practically unlimited.

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. ONE^der Boy 04:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I see that much of the information on the neighborhoods are actually about suburbs and not the city of Phoenix itself...perhaps this area needs to be radically revised.-- Msr69er 09:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. The article can link to Mesa, Scottsdale, Tempe, etc. but all of the information about them should be relocated into their respective articles. This article is about "Phoenix, Arizona", not the "Phoenix Metropolitan Area". Denvoran 14:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

However, when someone says Boston, do they mean Boston proper, or Cambridge and all the rest? If you were looking for information on "Phoenix Arizona", you'd mean the contiguous city called "Phoenix", if you were looking for information specifically about the "City of Phoenix" you'd look there... When you're talking about moving to the large city in the center of the state, you may end up in any of the suburbs. When someone from who-knows-where-on-the-internet asks me where I'm from, do I say Newton or Boston? You say the name of the largest city, if you're in one of the large MSAs. Otherwise you say a city near large-MSA.

~ender 2007-04-04 19:04:PM MST

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.167.217.162 ( talk) 02:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

I added a merge tag at the beginning of the section to alert other users. I may make the edits myself if I find the time within the next 2-3 weeks.-- Msr69er 19:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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,” [1]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Since when does Boston even come close to 7.4 million? Sources are good.

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)

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)

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)

As "Nick" as brought up, this article is simply far too long. It's 67kb, which is more than twice the recommended length. This length is recommended for reasons of usefulness; people simply won't read when that much information is thrown at them. A few suggestions on things to trim:

• Prehistory removed altogether. The Hohokam people did not live in the city of Phoenix, nor did they shape it. They dissappeared 4 centuries before Phoenix was even founded. Their story belongs in an article about the region.
• The "Phoenix Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)" has no place in a section regarding physical setting in the geography section.
• The various neighborhoods should be split off into their own separate articles with links provided to here. That chops off a third the length on this page.-- Loodog 00:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Neighborhoods

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).

Also-6 neighborhoods??? By what official count is this measured??? I can think of 10 neighborhood names right off of the bat just in Central phoenix alone, and yes, paradise valley should have been included immediately. But you have Encanto, the Biltmore, North Central Corridor, Camelback Corridor, Arcadia, Sunny Slope, Moon Valley, Midtown-Business district (north of 202/i-10, south of Indian School on central, Downtown doesn't start until the presidential streets...)Maryvale, and Alhambra.

-Thanks hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 04:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The city has 15 official Urban Villages. Any references or sub-pages should be limited to these official villages. Within those pages, we can then go into detail about any neighborhoods (Sunnyslope, Arcadia, etc). Cascadia 18:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cascadia's assessment. I don't know if you're going to find an authoritative list, however, given that Phoenix's officially designated neighborhoods (Roosevelt, Garfield, Evans-Churchill, Willo etc) are both numerous and discontiguous. The neighborhood association, for example, has different ideas of where Arcadia is compared with all the commercial property owners who tacked Arcadia onto their establishment or the folks in the vicinity of 44th and Camelback who would think they live in Arcadia as well.

To this end, last year, I made a map showing 126 distinct neighborhoods in Phoenix, but it's not authoritative other than the fact that I as a Phoenician made it. It may help the average user identify some sites within the city however: http://emvis.net/~sean/ssp/126_neighborhoods_of_phoenix.png Should any of you be curious in seeing this thing merged into Wikipedia after a cleanup or so, please let me know. Combuchan 12:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Sorry about not signing that-- DerRichter ( talk) 04:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Since this article is longer than necessary (see Wikipedia:Article length), I've starting looking for redundant or unneeded things that can be deleted or moved.

What does everyone think about removing most of the text in the sports section, and letting the "table of sports teams" serve its purpose? Most of the text is redundant with the specific sports team articles, anyway. Perhaps a brief summary of the phoenix sports scene would be better. - Nick ^talk 00:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The last change that moved the points of intrest to the points of pride article was not appropriate as not all the points of interest were points of pride. ONEder Boy 02:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the sections of the article, such as sports teams for example, should be brief summaries of the information. It could probably use some trimming. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 03:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

ONEderboy, I didn't catch that. I will move the list back. (Although we still need to be deleting/moving things from the page.) Also, the page I moved it to ( Phoenix Points of Pride) does, as stated by the page warnings, seem to be advertisement-like and unneeded. - Nick ^talk 03:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I also feel we're getting too many navigation panels at the bottom. At this point we have (in this order): Metro PHX, Phoenix Points of Pride, State of Arizona, US State Capitals, 50 Largest Cities by Population, and the All America City Award Hall of Fame. I think we should limit the nav panels to the fewest possible. Although Phoenix Points of Pride are part of Phoenix, the nav panel is better suited for the individual Points of Pride, not the Phoenix article. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 16:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Is a nav panel for Phoenix Points of Pride even needed at all? Seems like that would be best done by removing the nav panel entirely and integrating the information in it into a culture: points of interest section. The nav panel seems to be too much of an advertisement. Dr. Cash 17:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

A few remarks

1. Points of Pride is an advertisement. Remove it and incorporate into article or, if this makes your "Points of Interest" list too long (which I think it already is) create a new article Points of Interest in Phoenix, Arizona.
2. If you're looking to condense the article into a better more concise article, I see the obvious candidates for trimming: History and Sports. The History section should be stripped to a barebones 5 paragraphs (from current 16) with no subheadings between parts of it. Keep full history in its own page History of Phoenix, Arizona and link to it at the top of the new shortened History section. Sports: trim it down, remove notes about where teams used to play and other things bogging the section down, and I'd hardly call a winning Little League team noteworthy sports.-- Loodog 01:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Some has changed the intro recently and I reverted it. My reasons:

1. 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.
2. "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.
3. "Only 5 larger" is a more roundabout way of saying "sixth-largest".-- Loodog 20:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

For the many of us waiting for the exact moment that an official census count shows Phoenix surpassing Philadelphia, it will happen soon. This week, the census released figures that will be reflected in the official 2006 population counts that will be released in June. Phoenix is the fifth-largest city ( Phoenix news article) and Philadelphia is sixth ( Philadelphia's acknowledgment of the results). But, for those itching to change the article, let's wait until the official figures are announced. - Nick ^talk 07:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've looked up in census info the 2005 estimates. Even in 2005, census estimates Philly at 2000 more than Phoenix. The simple facts are:

• Phoenix will overtake Philly soon, if not already
• This will not be official until 2010 when actual census info comes out

Therefore, I think the existing footnote of "Phoenix may already have overtaken Philly, but this can't be confirmed until 2010" is good.-- Loodog 01:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read the edits carefully. The text says that Phoenix is the SIXTH largest city in the country. I didn't change that. The official US census estimates are used in every US city article on Wikipedia, and the 2006 numbers (which have been pre-released to city governments) show Phoenix has surpassed Philly to be 5th, a point acknowledged by the Philly government [2](see recent news articles in both Philly and Phoenix). I am NOT advocating saying phoenix is fifth right now. I am advocating leaving the 2005 count and a statement saying that Phoenix is 6th. Then, when the 2006 numbers are released in a few months, changing the population and the ranking accordingly. All of the cities update the annual population counts from the census. - Nick ^talk 02:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok. Agreed. Since List of United States cities by population uses latest estimates and not actual decade census's, we work from that convention.-- Loodog 02:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone can show that revenue from films made there is a significant part of the area's business, which I highly doubt, this information belongs somewhere in the entertainment/culture area. For a place like Hollywood, and maybe a few others that have significant film industries, this would belong under the "economy" heading, but not here. (Unless, of course, someone proves me wrong on this point. Been known to happen ...) + ILike2BeAnonymous 21:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm confused here. You've edit-warred me over wanting to remove 'in popular culture' from the 'culture' section, and I'm finally agreeing with you there. But now you want to partially put that back in? The problem with that is, if you put films in there, the next logical thing you have going in there are songs, music, and other 'popular culture' items. Which is fine, but you're getting back to having an 'in popular culture' section again. So maybe films doesn't really fit too well under economy. I can live with that. But maybe putting it under 'media' might be more appropriate. The 'arts and culture' section, to me, says it should cover some of the cultural points of interest and things pertinent to the population. Just a listing of films that some movie company decided to film in the city isn't too connected with that (maybe a little). But perhaps it's should be under 'media'.

Of course, I'm still at a loss of exactly where to put pop culture items in city articles anyway. I do agree that a simple listing of movies and films probably isn't exactly the best way to go, as more discussion can go in there regarding the significance of those films and why the city was chosen as the filming location. So I'm open to suggestions of where to put it exactly. But the title you've chosen for that section 'films made in Phoenix' goes directly against the manual of style, as you should not use the name of the article in subsection titles. Dr. Cash 21:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Just with respect to that last thing, there's no prohibition on using the name of the subject of the article in headings when appropriate. It's done all over the place here; just look around. (I'm sure there are cases where it's inappropriate, but this isn't one of them).

Basically agree about problem of where to put pop-culture stuff ... + ILike2BeAnonymous 21:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding using the name of the article in section headings, please review Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Sections and headings, specifically, the fifth bullet point under the section on wording: "Avoid redundancy and unnecessary words in headings, such as articles (a, an, and the), pronouns, and repetition of the title of the whole article."

True, while other editors do this elsewhere in wikipedia, this is some of the criteria that reviewers use when judging articles for good and featured status, and articles will very likely fail when nominated for such status due to things like this. Dr. Cash 21:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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.) - Nick ^talk 06:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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. - Nick ^talk 02:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed this and was reverted. Currently says:

“

As of 2006, the Phoenix Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) was the 13th-largest in the United States, with an estimated population of 4,039,182. The city of Phoenix covers a large area at 515 square miles, the 10th highest area for a city in the United States. The U.S. Census estimate put the city's population at 1,475,834 people. Although not densley populated, only five other cities in the United States have a higher population.

”

I had it saying

“

Phoenix had an estimated 2005 population of 1,475,834 [1], making it the sixth largest city in the United States. As of 2006, the Phoenix Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) was the 13th-largest in the United States, with an estimated population of 4,039,182.

”

My reasons:

1. Footnote is absolutely necessary because of this whole issue where people are waiting with ready fingers to change everything as soon as they find an estimate that makes Phoenix bigger than Philadelphia.
2. "Only five other cities have a higher population" means the same thing as "Phoenix is the sixth largest city" in a more convoluted way.
3. The density of the cities has nothing to do with their total populations. It feels thrown in as a sort of undermining of the statistics, a way to say that Phoenix's status as sixth largest is somehow "cheating" as city. We can leave such judgements to the reader.-- Loodog 06:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop reverting the intro, either way, it won't stay until we have concensus.

“

"The city of Phoenix covers a large area at 515 square miles, the 10th highest area for a city in the United States. The 2005 U.S. Census estimate put the city's population at 1,475,834 people.[footnote] Although Phoenix is not densely populated, only five other cities in the United States have a higher population than Phoenix, partly due to the fact that Phoenix's city-limits area is so much larger than the city-limits areas of most other major cities in the United States.

”

The prose is now profusely apologetic for Phoenix's status. If Phoenix really deserves its title is for the reader to decide, not for us to pick at.-- Loodog 20:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, folks. This is really getting somewhat ridiculous here,... All the article needs is a simple statement of PHX being the 5th or 6th largest, depending on what the census data says (currently, it's 6th). But we definitely don't need 2-3 sentences, or a small paragraph, explaining the whole significance of this, justifying this to the world to compensate for the small penis sizes of certain residents of the valley,... Dr. Cash 06:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

As always, please be careful to source them. Nyttend 12:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

There is an error (perhaps rounding) under "Area" in that the sum of "Land" (515.126 sq mi) + "Water" (0.2 sq mi) is less than "City" (515.1 sq mi).

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)

Because this was a nationwide phenomenon and not particularly notable in the history of the city.-- Loodog ( talk) 14:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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". - Nick ^talk 20:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

PS: Media in the Phoenix DMA might be another title?

"Media in the Phoenix DMA" sounds good. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think you can put in the flag, but as it uses the same graphic as featured in the logo that's shown, just in different color scheme, it isn't neccissary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.155.171 ( talk) 22:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 .. Sher eth 22:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

merged. Dr. Cash ( talk) 21:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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. - Nick ^talk 06:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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 ( [3] 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. Sher eth 14:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. - Nick ^talk 16:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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 <big> tag was removed. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 13:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this really true? I have not carefully reviewed the article, but lived there 25+ years, and don't want to hear this. Do I need to spend clean up time here??? -- I B d Shank ( Talk Talk) 14:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

I believe I reverted it.  I assumed a vandal was just nipping away at the article, since it was not moved somewhere.  Your logic sounds reasonable.  One could also argue that some notable/extraordinary trivia belongs in the lead.  I'm really neutral on it being there or not.  Maybe some articles are large enough to deserve a trivia info box(if the is such a thing?  If you just nip something out, maybe leave a little hint as to your reasoning, and hopefully someone will see it and not revert. -- I B d Shank ( Talk Talk) 14:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

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. Alexius Horatius 22:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

An image used in this article, File:JustinUpton.jpg, 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 image page (File:JustinUpton.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 03:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

Never mind, I found The Weather Channel's statistics page for Phoenix and replaced it. — Will ^(B) 16:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I recommend no change. "Phoenix, Arizona" is fine. Rjensen ( talk) 11:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@ Rjensen: 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)

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)

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)

@ Dontreadalone:, @ David J Johnson:, @ Rjensen:, and @ Hamish59:. 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)

Many thanks and best regards, David, David J Johnson ( talk) 17:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I was asked to give a few comments on this FAC by Gareth Griffith-Jones, as a result of a rapid suggestion to withdraw the nomination. So here goes.

Fundamentals

• 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!

 Done

• 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.

 Done —  (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.

 Done — : 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)

More, technical specifics

• 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.

 Done  —  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  —   Done  —  per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Overlinking and underlinking

Over-referencing  —  @ The Rambling Man:, 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".

 —   Done  —  (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.

 Done  —  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".

 Done  —  Onel5969 ( talk) 23:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Cherry-picking, e.g. "Some of the top ranked are:..." perhaps generally acceptable, but to me, you've determined your own criteria for inclusion in this article, which is a case of WP:OR.
• Comprehensive citations, I've already mentioned consistency of date formats, author names etc, but CITESTYLE also offers advice on the fields one would expect to see, e.g. ref 16 currently just has a title and an accessdate, no publisher or work information, no publication date or author names etc. Sure, these are not always available for every reference, but every reference should be checked to include all such information where available, Nikki will check this!

 Done  —  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)

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)

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)