Talk:Louisville, Colorado

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

United States: Colorado Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Colorado portal This article is supported by WikiProject Colorado, our collaboration to create, improve, and update Wikipedia articles about the U.S. State of Colorado. To comment about this article, select the Add topic tab above. For questions about, or to make suggestions for Colorado articles, go to our project's talk page. We invite you to join us!

Neutrality

The yearly average low of 16F cannot possibly be correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviatorpilotman (talk • contribs) 17:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain, but I'll start an area to discuss this. NE2 said in his editing comment on November 1, "The intro is pretty POV, listing only good things." It is true that it lists only good things, but on the other hand, I couldn't find a statement that isn't factual. Can anyone find contradicting statements in reliable sources? -- Ken g6 20:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote some of the material marked POV, and I live in Louisville, so I won't make any formal recommendation. Informally, however, I will say this: if you are searching the web for anything bad that has been written about Louisville, good luck with that! I have tried, and failed. Some people in Boulder put down Louisville as a place for families raising children, others will tell you it's rather boring, and that is about it for "negative" comments. Here are links to all of the unsolicited posts at city-data.com on Louisville:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/colorado/186695-life-louisville.html#post1895809

http://www.city-data.com/forum/denver/92140-commuting-louisville-dtc-bad-idea.html#post825801

http://www.city-data.com/forum/denver/117981-highlands-ranch-vs-louisville-software-jobs.html

http://www.city-data.com/forum/denver/136372-commuting-louisville-downtown-wateron-canyon.html#post1287799

http://www.city-data.com/forum/denver/116871-money-magazine-louisville-3-best.html#post1076843

For comparison, I believe that the following is a typical sentiment expressed by people who actually live in Louisville: "As far as my happiness index, it's gotta be near 100. I moved here over 20 years ago, but I remember that toward the end of my second year, I realized I was not going back."

—Aetheling (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - as a former resident of Louisville I would have to contend that the intro is strongly POV. I would recommend moving the comments to another section of the article and rewriting them. The links and confirmation of the magazines as it being a good place to live can be mentioned but should never be stated flat out (as it was) as fact. I would not have it in the intro, instead the intro should contain relevant information connected with the statistics of the town. The second paragraph was a good example of this.

The statement that proceeds as follows : "and has evolved into one of the best places to live and raise a family in the entire United States, as recognized repeatedly in surveys by Money magazine and in the book Best Places to Raise Your Family."

I would write along the lines of "Louisville has been recognized by numerous publications as one of the best places to live and raise a family in the United States." This keeps the information relevant but not implying fact. The word 'entire' in of itself confirms the pushing of the data as fact. In this case it is not necessary as it is quite obviously implied.

Finally - good and bad cannot ever be fact. It can be strongly agreed upon but cannot be fact. Therefore magazines and articles saying the environment of Louisville is good does not make it a fact. Worth mentioning certainly. The data in paragraph two is fact. It can imply the second conclusion of Louisville being a great place to live. That is enough.

Brainerror138 (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Brainerror138Brainerror138 (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I adopted the language that you recommended, and tried to summarize the (brief) history of Louisville at the same time. If you would like to go further with the editing, go right ahead. —Aetheling (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is a POV issue, but the intro looks messy with the bulleted list in there; some of the details should be moved down. As for "negative criticism", which doesn't need to be in the intro if there's not much, is there any data on stuff like commute times? --NE2 19:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few sources that might be useful, not necessarily for "criticism" but just general information, or they might be too minor to mention at all:

[1] (new urbanism in Louisville)
[2] (developer sued the city and citizens after they rejected a project)

If anyone has access to "Best Places to Raise Your Family", does it have anything negative about Louisville? --NE2 19:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Louisville, Colorado. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090623023526/http://www.dailycamera.com:80/news/2007/sep/03/literary-louisville-record-numbers-use-library/ to http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2007/sep/03/literary-louisville-record-numbers-use-library/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Louisville, Colorado. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Marshall Fire

Here is some material on the Marshall Fire.

https://kdvr.com/news/local/photos-aftermath-of-the-marshall-fire-in-superior-louisville-broomfield/

https://denver.cbslocal.com/video/6179654-fire-forces-evacuations-for-superior-and-louisville-residents/

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2021/12/30/colorado-wildfires-burn-hundreds-homes-evacuations/: "More than 500 homes have burned and over 21,000 people in Louisville, Colorado, and 13,000 in Superior, Colorado, are under evacuations orders, which could continue to increase as strong winds across the state fuel the fire’s spread." Kdammers (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Events section

The recent events section of the article is full of accolades more than anything else. Although the Marshall Fire is listed (as it should be), it doesn't seem like any of the other content belongs. The city changing its status to home-rule should be it's own section or listed under History. Perhaps we can remove the accolodates, or at least move them their own section too. Even better, is there a source that talks in general terms about the accolades so we can consolidate the timeline into a couple of sentences, instead of repetitive bullet points? — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 02:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]