Talk:Santa Fe, New Mexico

ISS Photo
Santa Fe doesn't even appear *in* the photo from the ISS - an area to the north of the city is shown. The description should be updated to reflect this. 86.20.245.227 (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Santa Fe - the place to be
In 2000, on a bus traveling through Garden Grove, California, a Mexican-American said to me "Santa Fe. That is the place to be. Santa Fe." Should I add this to the article? Oglach na hEireann (talk) 07:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * No, that wouldn't be encyclopedic, but that sounds like it was a nice interaction. Arlo James Barnes 07:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

"Five Centuries of Colonization"
I'm a bit puzzled by the little time-line box at the start of the History section, titled "Five Centuries of Colonization" and listing the timespans of Spanish, Mexican and US control of the Santa Fe, as it implies that the city is being colonized to this day. I don't see anything in the main article that supports this and I can't imagine it's a widely-held sentiment. Can we change it so something neutral? Lennart97 (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I see now that the header used to say "settlement" as opposed to "colonization" until only a month ago, when an IP changed it stating "Clarified heading as subsequent article addresses colonization amid the frontier wars with Indigenous peoples, and not settlement, as the area had been settled for millennia before European-led invasion." I feel that settlement is still more accurate since we're talking about the city and not the general area, plus colonization just doesn't make sense to describe the modern era. Therefore I've reverted the change but feel free to suggest alternatives. Lennart97 (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Census data is wrong
I was going to correct the census data based on the actual numbers at https://data.census.gov/profile/Santa_Fe_city,_New_Mexico?g=160XX00US3570500 but the thought occured to me that these numbers may be auto-extracted and the problem is systemic and not limited to this page.

The specific error that drew my attention is the claim that the percentage of the population 65+ is about 14%, but cenus.gov shows clearly that this refers only to the 65-74 group; the figure for 65+ is actually around 25%

Maybe someone who knows more about how census data ends up on a wikipedia place page like this could comment on whether there is a chance of this being a systemic mistake ? PaulDavisTheFirst (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Climate & elevation
The correlation between the city’s climate and elevation, is not well illustrated on the article. @Kinu דולב חולב (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I think my edit was helpful for the average person in order to understand the city’s climate and its causes. דולב חולב (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)