Talk:Farmington, New Mexico

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: New Mexico Low‑importance 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject New Mexico (assessed as Low-importance). Cities 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 articles

I think the fact that it was a nuclear test site is certainly significant, possibly needs rewording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.140.120 (talk) 03:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC) If by "it" you mean Farmington being a nuclear test site, I don't think so. Ground zero for the Gasbuggy explosion was many dozens of miles away, not even in the same county; saying that Farmington was therefore a nuclear test site would be stretching it, to put it mildly. It'd favor keeping it about the way it is. Ohyesbut (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the link to the Desert Rock Blog because it doesn't have anything to do with the comment period for the proposed Desert Rock power-plant. If someone wants to add a section for controversy over Desert Rock, it might be more at home there, but as it is, it's a mis-leading link. --Hoganp1 (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep separate. The current article has roughly the same amount of detail as
  Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Library System, which describes a much larger library system. I do think Farmington Public Library should have more details, so a more appropriate marking would be Template:Expand. --Uncia (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There being no further discussion, I have deleted the merge tags. --Uncia (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since community/junior colleges don't even award bachelor's degrees, they certainly aren't going to confer doctorates, so I re-worded the blurb on College Blvd. in the section. 74.215.242.83 (talk) 05:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Graham87 15:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest deleting the paragraph about College Boulevard having four schools on it. That's really not particularly extraordinary, and sounds more like Board of Education puffery than anything else. Even moreso, I'd drop the paragraph about the "feud" between the two high schools. Any town with two or more high schools has exactly these same sort of rivalries. This simply isn't encyclopedia-type information that's worthy of inclusion in an article about this city. Ohyesbut (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note; I've removed them both. The college boulevard thing would be more unusual where I live in Australia, but most universities here are in major cities. Graham87 15:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it me, or the "notable places" section is just an ad for some restaurant? Zhuravskij (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch; I removed it. I obviously didn't read it properly when it was added. Graham87 06:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Farmington, New Mexico. 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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YSasqtfX?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fprod%2Fwww%2Fdecennial.html to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2013/SUB-EST2013-3.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140821002106/http://www.newmexico.org/trail-of-the-ancients/ to http://www.newmexico.org/trail-of-the-ancients/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YSasqtfX?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fprod%2Fwww%2Fdecennial.html to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gofarmington.com/community_resources/schools.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 23:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page reads:

"It grew from 3,637 in 1950 to 35,000 in 1953 and the expansion continued after that"

The linked evidence claims:

"In 1946 Farmington city limits covered only 630 acres; by 1950, it expanded to 2,240-acres as the city stretched north encompassing the new forty-one house subdivision built by El Paso Natural Gas Company for workers at their San Juan River plant. Population burst from 3,637 in 1950 to the local estimate of 35,000 in 1953, as oil and gas workers flooded into Farmington."

It's not clear if the 35,000 is even Farmington population or metro area population from that quote - and 35,000 is not born out of census data, which has 23,785 for the population in 1960 (still - a huge jump). 2600:1700:6971:F080:9172:866D:E8CB:A68E (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note; I've gone and removed the exact figure, even though I know nothing about the subject and only have this article on my watchlist to deal with vandalism. I've encountered similar mistakes in articles more local to me; these sorts of misinterpretations of old data are common. Graham87 02:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]