Talk:Dodge City, Kansas/Archive 1

Important Notes Before Editing This Article
Please review the following to get a better idea of what you should add to this article:
 * 1) Please follow the Wikipedia USCITY guideline for layout and content.
 * 2) Please examine these great articles for ideas: Lock Haven, Pennsylvania / Stephens City, Virginia / Kent, Ohio / Tulsa, Oklahoma / Grand Forks, North Dakota.
 * 3) Please ensure a person meets Wikipedia Notability requirements before adding to the "Notable People" section.

Please review the following before editing:
 * 1) Please document your source by citing a reference to prove your text is verifiable.
 * 2) Please add text that has a neutral point of view instead of sounding like an advertisement.
 * 3) Please read the "Editing, Creating, and Maintaining Articles" chapter from the book Wikipedia : The Missing Manual, ISBN 9780596515164.

Sbmeirow (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Seeming copyright violation
The entire History section of this article seems to be a cut-and-paste job by an anonymous user at 68.3.231.152, taken verbatim from the Ford County Historical Society. Note that that page explicitly states, "all rights reserved." Copyright would be in force even without that notice, of course.

If this text was used with permission, that fact needs to be properly documented, preferrably on this page, and it needs to be wikified and the style changed to be appropriate for an encyclopedia.

I'm going to delete the History section because if its apparent infringing nature. (I don't see how just a section of an article fits into the copyright problems notification procedure, though.) -- Kbh3rd 20:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The section on "get the hell out of Dodge" was also plagiarized from and thus needs to be replaced.Prodicus (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Get the hell out of Dodge
This page could do with a mention of this famous phrase, as all the websties on the first page of google hits for the exact phrase that give an eymology says it refers to Dodge City, Kansas. Thryduulf 15:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought that the phrase, "Get the hell out of Dodge" refered to a dodge truck. I guess this makes more sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.174.231.18 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 12 February 2007


 * Okay, I added that "Get the hell out of Dodge" is in reference to Dodge City. And no, it doesn't mention getting out of a Dodge Truck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.174.231.18 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 23 February 2007


 * I removed the triva phrase "Get the Hell out of Dodge." I did so not because I disagree with the possibility of including it in the article; I did so because it was slapped into a random location without any context or explanation whatsoever.  If anyone is going to add this phrase, it should be done so properly.  That is, by giving it its proper context and history.  Otherwise you could insert any meaningless phrase or cliche in that you pleased.  The phrase actually originates with the Television show Gunsmoke and more appropriately belongs with that article. StudierMalMarburg 23:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like StudierMalMarburg likes to use the word "SLAP". Must be a fetish for him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.105.34 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 29 November 2007


 * No, but perhaps it is for you, since you're the one who seems to be obsessing over it? May I suggest you review Wikipedia's rules on etiquette before making any more pointless remarks? StudierMalMarburg (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I couldn't believe this article doesn't include a "Get Out Of Dodge" section. What the heck?  I was even more amazed that it was added, and then actually removed by someone.  That person should be removed from editing wikipedia because he/she obviously doesn't truly understand this website.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.54.22 (talk) 05:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Where's The History?
How can you hve an article about Dodge City without the history of Dodge City? That's like talking about the March on Washington without mentioning the I Have a Dream speech. It's just something you don't do. Someone please add an ACCURATE history of Dodge City —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.116.227 (talk • contribs)
 * There used to be an extensive history section that, unfortunately, was a direct copyright violation copied from the Ford County Historical Society, and therefore it had to be removed. If you perceive a lack of content, feel free to research it and add the missing material yourself.  See the welcome page to get started. --Kbh3rd talk  13:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I added a section on early history and a reference section for my printed source material. (StudierMalMarburg 22:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC) = StudierMalMarburg 17:10, 04 July 2006 (UTC)).

Not Natives
Wyatt Earp and Bill Tilghman were not natives of Dodge City. Both served for a brief time as lawmen in Dodge, but neither can claim to be a native son. I'm moving them to a new section entitled "notable lawmen." Representative Pat Roberts isn't a native of Dodge City either. StudierMalMarburg 17:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget about the legend bots!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.174.231.18 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 10 January 2007

Dodge City Denial

 * Why do you refuse to mention the legendbots? They are a key reference to DC! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.174.231.18 (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
 * The Legend are mentioned in the Introduction to the page. Also, the rest of the material you keep trying to add -- particularly the so-called "legendbots" is pointless trivia. StudierMalMarburg 22:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have heard of the Legend Bots of Dodge City. They seemed to have faded after the USBL shut down. But the Legend Bots are famous throughout Kansas. I live in Wichita and I have heard of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.172.125.99 (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Downtown Picture
Somebody please remove the picture of the downtown! It is embarassing. There is some sort of construction fencing going on, the photo is dark, there is a pole dividing the picture, and the tree looks like the main focus of the photo. And speaking of "focus" the picture is blury as well. Please remove the photo and take a better during mid day. Thanks!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.74.119 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 24 April 2007
 * Well, I was travelling through the city — never been there, and never had any chance to be there before. Just have some local person go and take a picture.  Nyttend 15:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll get right on that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.150.238 (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Map coordinates ghost-image
Is anyone else seeing this? It comes up for me in both Firefox and IE. I'm only a beginner when it comes to Wikicode, so I can't figure out what the problem is. TJSwoboda 04:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the double geographical coördinates? I'm seeing double of that, too, but I don't know what to do either.  Nyttend 13:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking to work this article up to FA status.
I want to do for this article, what another editor did for Tulsa, Oklahoma. I hope this won't be an issue with other editors who have worked on DCK in the past. Given that a fairly innocuous edit I made a short while ago was reverted with a somewhat snarky edit summary asking whether I was going to rewrite all of the county seat articles, I'm concerned that it might be. I don't think that every county seat article has to look the exact same, or begin with the same sentence form. The Tulsa article is a prime example. My aim is to work collegially with those who have helped the article achieve its current state. I hope that I will be extended the same courtesy, and will not simply see my edits reverted wholesale, simply upon the basis that other county seat articles do not look the same way. LHM 18:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Dodge City, Kansas
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Dodge City, Kansas's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "HKO": From Sacramento, California:  From Fresno, California:  From Portland, Oregon:  From Albuquerque, New Mexico:  From Nome, Alaska:  From Abilene, Texas:  From Tulsa, Oklahoma:  From Valentine, Nebraska: </li> <li>From Topeka, Kansas: </li> <li>From Wichita, Kansas: </li> <li>From El Paso, Texas: </li> <li>From Amarillo, Texas: </li> <li>From Reno, Nevada: </li> <li>From Rapid City, South Dakota: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of the daily mean in the Climate section weather box table
Over the past couple of days, User:Guerrilla of the Renmin and I have been going back and forth with edits over whether to include Daily Mean temperature data in the color-coded weather box table under the Climate section. Historically, when adding content to this section in Kansas city articles, I have populated the Daily Mean using average temperature data from National Weather Service websites. For example, in this case, I pulled the numbers from here: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=ddc.

Guerrilla of the Renmin has repeatedly deleted the Daily Mean data from this article. His reasons given thus far have been that the data "provides zero extra information" because "all the US and Canadian agencies do is take (HI + LO) / 2" and that the data has not been "included in the charts of the vast majority of US cities to begin with".

I argue for inclusion of Daily Mean data on the following grounds:
 * Inclusion is valid and relevant under USCITY guidelines.
 * The data available from the National Weather Service (NWS), which constitutes a reliable source for this sort of information, meets Verifiability standards.
 * As the NWS is a reliable source for meteorological and climatological data, its method of calculating average temperature is trustworthy.
 * Template:Weather box includes the row for Daily Mean, indicating that other WP editors, specifically those that developed the template, feel the inclusion of average temperature data is valid and relevant.

Guerrilla and I have now reverted each other's edits multiple times. We're now close to the three-revert rule. The current version of the article reflects his latest deletion. In the interest of avoiding an edit war, settling this dispute now, and achieving consensus on this issue going forward, I am requesting comment from other editors. Specifically: FUBAR007 (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Should Daily Mean temperature data be included in the weather box table in this and other U.S. city articles?
 * Is the NWS average temperature data a valid source for populating the Daily Mean section of the table?


 * No to inclusion:
 * 1) The current wording of WP:USCITY is as follows: This section provides general climatic conditions that have been recorded in the community. The purpose is to describe what weather should be expected and why. Topics include average, high, and low temperatures, precipitation (rain, snow, or both), wind, etc. Numbers can sometimes be best displayed and understood using a table. Note the wording is suggestive and does not specifically instruct the editor what to definitely include or exclude, unlike Demographics just below. It is entirely each editor's discretion
 * 2) The NWS and Environment Canada are one of the very few governmental meteorological agencies to report the daily mean as the arithmetic mean ([MAX + MIN] / 2), unlike the vast majority of agencies globally, including HKO (Hong Kong weatherbox), China Meteorological Administration (Haikou), Korea Meteorological Administration (Seoul weatherbox), and Japan Meteorological Agency (inner Tokyo stats), which, AFAIK, calculate the daily mean by taking the arithmetic mean of top-at-the-hour temperature readings. A) The latter method is usually much more accurate; suppose, the morning low was 28.7 °C at 05:30, the daily high of 40.2 °C was reached at 14:12, and the temperature remained above 37.8 °C from 11:11 until 18:12, and above 35 °C until 21:42, when a derecho drastically cut the temperature to 22.0 °C by 22:30, and the thermometer hovered around that level until midnight. NWS and Environment Canada would report the daily average as 31.1 °C, and the East Asian group would most certainly place it above 32 °C. B) In most climates, especially those of Dodge City, KS and the interior U.S. between 100 and 117 °W, inclusion of daily "means" in the table distorts the reader's immediate perception of diurnal temperature variation; without daily "means" the reader has no visual barrier between the daily MAX and MIN, and can for himself directly calculate the variation. On a side note, U.S. and Canadian infoboxes, which are typically the largest of any nation's, are already bloated enough without the inclusion of daily "means".
 * 3) Just because Weather box includes such fields does not mean editors are compelled to fill them in. It only means that they are widely reported. GotR Talk 23:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * In response to 1 - Surely that wording allows the daily mean? "Topics include average, high, and low temperatures." It's a small but important grammatical difference that it doesn't say "Topics include average high and low temperatures." Samwalton9 (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes to inclusion of Daily Mean temperature data in the color-coded weather box tables. I'll state my biases up front first. I have have been a meteorologist in the USA for over 20 years, and I have worked for the NWS for a majority of that time. I don't happen to work for the NWS anymore, and I don't claim to speak for the NWS here. While there are general rules for observing weather internationally, many countries don't conduct their operations exactly the same way, and this is actually allowed under international (World Meteorological Organization - WMO) rules.


 * "Should Daily Mean temperature data be included in the weather box table in this and other U.S. city articles?"


 * Yes, since it provides another level of data for the user to process separately from the other data provided in the standardized Wikipedia weather box templates.


 * "Is the NWS average temperature data a valid source for populating the Daily Mean section of the table?"


 * Yes, obviously this would be a completely valid source for data, for U.S. cities & towns only.


 * "His reasons given thus far have been that the data 'provides zero extra information' because 'all the US and Canadian agencies do is take (HI + LO) / 2' and that the data has not been 'included in the charts of the vast majority of US cities to begin with'."


 * Just because something isn't included in a Wikipedia article now doesn't mean that it can never be included in the future.


 * "The current wording of WP:USCITY#Climate is as follows: This section provides general climatic conditions that have been recorded in the community"


 * ...and the data that will be provided for Mean Daily Temperature will actually reflect the way that local data is recorded & calculated locally (see below).


 * "It is entirely each editor's discretion"


 * ...which obviously means that just because an editor chooses to include it doesn't mean that user is doing anything wrong.


 * "2) The NWS and Environment Canada are one of the very few governmental meteorological agencies to report the daily mean as the arithmetic mean ([MAX + MIN] / 2), unlike the vast majority of agencies globally"


 * "A) The latter method is usually much more accurate"


 * I was actually unaware up until coming across this discussion here that there was a variability in the way that mean daily temperature was being calculated from country to country, but it is, in fact, apparently true (See: Estimating daily mean temperature from synoptic climate observations - Short title: Daily mean temperature - Yuting Ma1 and Peter Guttorp). It's also true that at least some studies have shown that calulating the mean daily temperature using hourly (or even one-minute) values of temperature is sometimes more accurate than the method currently used by the NWS. The problem is that many surface observing sites worldwide aren't actually recording temperature readings every hour...many just take one reading per day of what the max and min temperature was over the previous 24-hour period. I've also never heard any discussion inside (or outside) the NWS about changing the way that mean daily temperatures are calculated in the USA.


 * The issue here really doesn't even take into account the variability in how different countries calculate daily mean temperature, since the weather boxes in question only use monthly values of "Daily mean °C (°F)" temperatures, and there is only one international standard for calculating those readings (See: World Meteorological Organization - World Weather Watch Technical Report - Handbook on CLIMAT and CLIMAT TEMP Reporting - 2009 edition) according to the WMO, which is to take the daily mean temperatures for each day of the month in question (however that value is calculated in the first place) and average them based on the number of days in the month in question. For example, May has 31 days, so you'd be averaging 31 different daily mean temperatures to get the monthly average temperature, which can be reported in the Wikipedia weather boxes in question.


 * Just as an aside, derechoes have a rather rare chance of occurrence at any one observing station, but a strong frontal system can frequently have the same effect that was described above by "Guerrilla of the Renmin".


 * "B) In most climates, especially those of Dodge City, KS and the interior U.S. between 100 and 117 °W, inclusion of daily 'means' in the table distorts the reader's immediate perception of diurnal temperature variation; without daily 'means' the reader has no visual barrier between the daily MAX and MIN, and can for himself directly calculate the variation."


 * This, IMHO, is a very weak argument. It's important to try & respect the level of intelligence of the people that are reading the information provided on Wikipedia, and I don't think that including one extra piece of data is going to confuse anyone about how much of a "normal" diurnal range a particular location can expect to have in a given month. No one here appears to be advocating for removing the values for "Average high °C (°F)" or "Average low °C (°F)" monthly temperatures from the weather boxes.


 * "U.S. and Canadian infoboxes, which are typically the largest of any nation's, are already bloated enough without the inclusion of daily 'means'."


 * There is no limit that I'm aware of to the size of any Wikipedia article, and one more line of data isn't going to be a tipping point for anyone.


 * "3) Just because 'Weather box' includes such fields does not mean editors are compelled to fill them in. It only means that they are widely reported."


 * Agreed, and, if that data is reported and available through a reliable source (like the NWS), then I feel very strongly that it should be included here on Wikipedia. Guy1890 (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Mean temperatures should be included in the climate box. Many city articles have mean temperatures. First of all, while the mean temperature is calculated by (HIGH+LOW)/2, and is not as a accurate as the other methods used to calculate mean temperatures, you cannot expect people to calculate the mean by themselves (if I did not see the mean temp, I would calculate it by using that method which might not be the same as the one the source provides). I highly doubt that it confuses anyone about how much of a "normal" diurnal range a particular location can expect to have in a given month. More importantly, mean temperatures are useful in deciding the climate type of a location (for example, Cfa climates must have a mean temp greater than 0°C in closest month and a mean temp greater than 22°C in warmest month) because without it, there could be potential edit wars over the climate type of a particular city (example: New York City). Using mean temperatures can help resolve issues like this one because you can just look at the mean temperatures and refer to the Köppen climate classification. Adding one extra line will not be a tipping point for anyone and if the climate box is too large, then you can just collapse it. Ssbbplayer (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "More importantly, mean temperatures are useful in deciding the climate type of a location"&mdash;And that's what in-text descriptions are there for. With the exception for uncommon (in terms of %population) subarctic climate, all that is needed is a warmest and coolest month average. As you saw at NYC, the presence of mean temperatures does not eliminate the potential for edit wars on classification. GotR Talk 22:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes to inclusion. It doesn't hurt anything. Could this be a candidate for Lame Edit Wars? GoodeOldeboy (talk) 03:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes to inclusion. Personally I don't care whether such an item goes in or not, because even if I encounter it in my skimming the article, it does not interfere with my reading anything else. If someone wants to take such trouble and inclusion does no harm, that is far more important then digging up rules that could be interpreted as probably hinting that it might not be the best idea. Conversely, finicking about whether one can find grounds for omitting something minor is gross, disruptive discourtesy to the parties who then have to waste their time on non-substantial issues. I am sure that someone could find something more profitable to contribute than that. JonRichfield (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes to inclusion. Even if the mean temperature is (HIGH+LOW)/2 putting it there ensures that people know that it is (HIGH+LOW)/2 and not something else and conversely putting in mean temperatures that are not based on (HIGH+LOW)/2 ensures that people know that the mean temperature is not calculated as (HIGH+LOW)/2 (using a in text description might not be sufficient enough because to a reader, the reader might interpret the mean temperature as a calculation error if it is not calculated as (HIGH+LOW)/2 such the weatherboxes in China). I usually do not add in mean temperatures only if a reliable source does not provide a mean temperature data such as the weatherboxes in Australia but in this case, I would add it although I will not edit war over it. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes to inclusion, as long as it is expressly cited what the source is (ideally with a few words on what method is used for calculating the mean). –  SJ  +  17:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes to inclusion, per the reasons above. It doesn't sound like purposefully misleading or maliciously included data, so I do not really feel the need to object.  — daranz [ t ] 23:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes to inclusion per reasons by OP and other "yes-commentators". I haven't seen any valid argument not to include this data. If the opponents are very upset by the means that the average is calculated they are free to asterix or footnote the "Average" term to indicate how the averages are calculated in this case. W\&#124;/haledad (Talk to me) 04:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The default 30-day RfC period has ended, and the RfC bot has delisted this discussion. I think the consensus in favor of inclusion is clear. Unless others feel the RfC period needs to be extended or a formal request for closure is appropriate, I'm ready to call this matter closed. FUBAR007 (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's time to bring this issue to an end. Guy1890 (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Demographics
Does the following make sense? There is a 57% and 72% in this:

"The racial makeup of the city was 72.5% White, 2.5% African American, 1.1% American Indian, 1.6% Asian, 0.2% Pacific Islander, 19.3% from other races, and 2.9% from two or more races. Hispanics and Latinos of any race were 57.5% of the population.[9]" Msjayhawk (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The 2010 census did not classify Hispanic or Latino as a "race," but instead labeled it as a separate, ethnic category. Therefore, people who classified themselves as "Hispanic or Latino" also had to list one of the "race" categories (White, African American, etc.) For Dodge City, 35.3% of the total population classified themselves as White and Hispanic. 19.2% of the total population classified themselves as "Some other race" and Hispanic. The remaining 3% chose one of the other race categories (such as two or more races). Stedil (talk) 01:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)