Talk:Denver International Airport

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opening comments[edit]

Living in Denver, I would have to argue with the statement that DIA is 'near' Denver. ;-)

The article is probably a good place to state that, giving the exact distance or whatever. Pakaran 23:04, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
DIA is closer to where I live in Thornton than it is to metro Denver. Still a 30 minute drive in good traffic (and thank the stars, the traffic is always good.) Incidentally, I think DIA is probably the nicest airport I've ever set foot in, and I've been to Heath Row and Gatwick. --[[User:Ardonik|Ardonik(talk)]] 03:33, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Is there space for any of the fantastic 'conspiracy theory' stuff mentioned here [1], if only in the form of an 'and finally...' section? It goes on and on about how the airport is a mixture of Masonic and Nazi symbolism, shaped like a swastika, with some hideous murals. Is it really a den of evil? Ashley Pomeroy 18:27, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. The conspiracy theory stuff deserves at least a link. DIA was at one point famous amongst certain circles for its alleged Masonic and New World Order motifs. Not to mention the urban legends of vast underground levels.
We would need a reliable source for that, and we don't have one. FCYTravis 06:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean we don't have one? A) Look at the airport by satellite: Swastika. The article here calls it a pinwheel, which is more neutral, but this isn't a big point, as that layout is very efficient in that all 6 runways can be used at the same time. B) Look at the murals: truly hideous content. Not fit for a public area that children can easily see. The runway layout can be overlooked, but when this is combined with the dead Jewish girl in a coffin in one of the murals, one might wonder. I'm not a believer in conspiracies, but I don't mind lending them an ear and find it interesting doing so. I think the page should have a more prominent mention of the murals at least, if not the conspiracy theory. I don't know about vast underground levels and what may or may not go on there, but as for the murals you don't need a "reliable source". Your eyes should be good enough...and they're weird to say the least. Ypsidan (talk)
In the spirit of Being Bold, and my impression (especially with the "Best Aiport" awards listed in the beginning) that this page read like an airport advertisement, instead of a neutral list of the facts, I added on a few links on the bottom. One about how the airport is superfluous and inconvenient, and another on the conspiracy theory. I was at the airport a few weeks ago, and I agree it is very nice from the inside of the United terminal. I did not have time nor motivation to go all the way out to the main terminal to see the murals personally. On a completely unrelated note, I will try to avoid it in the future and connect in Chicago instead because of the turbulence experienced both landing and taking off here due to the proximity of the mountains. Ypsidan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my -admittedly fairly limited - experience, Phoenix is MUCH worse for turbulence... Mr Larrington (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"It is also known for a pedestrian bridge connecting the terminal to Concourse A that offers a unique view of planes taxiing directly underneath." Is this still true, London Gatwick Airport also has such a bridge... http://coppermine.luchtzak.be/displayimage.php?pos=-3450

Might have to remove the unique (it was however unique at hte time). The bridge is still there and still offers the view of course, but it is no longer the only airport in the world to do so. I'll let others decide the best way to reword this for clarity's sake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.155.139 (talk) 05:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about DEN[edit]

Why didn't they make runways 7 and 8 (25 and 26 the other way) parllel?

A: I believe it is to leave open the oportunity for expansion. Just like the north/south runways, they are actually parallel. Having 4 runways with the same numbers would cause more confusion.
a: Actually, it is because the wind patterns around Denver have a tendency to shift significantly. While that's not a critical failure (crosswind landings are possible), this allows for efficent airfield usage. Also the pinwheel formation allows relativly short taxi times to outlier runways.
It has nothing to do with wind patterns. The runways are effectively parallel. It is as the first answerer says - so they could have four "parallel" runways. Standard practice with parallel runways is to label one "Right" and one "Left". So runways 7 and 8 could be "7L" and "7R" (or "8L" and "8R",) but by making them one number off (theoretically between 1 and 10 degrees apart,) they could later add parallel runways for each, for FOUR runways in that alignment, "7L", "7R", "8L", and "8R". (And the reverses, of course.) It was in the original plan to be able to have up to four runways in each major direction. This is already in place with other runways 16L/16R/17L/17R. (16/17 are the "crosswind" runways compared to 7/8.) Ehurtley (talk) 05:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Software engineering disasters[edit]

I saw this article listed in Category:Software engineering disasters, but I don't see what disaster occurred. Is it referring to the automated baggage handling problems? --Mrwojo 23:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Paul 01:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tents[edit]

DIA is famous for the canopy tents ment to resemble the Rockies. Could somebody either take a good picture of the airport from the exterior or locate one? Editor19841 20:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

any images of the distinctive roof from the outside?[edit]

When I think of the denver airport, I think of the distinctive white roof, and it's a pity there aren't any pictures of it in the article.

here are some creative commons pictures of the denver airport: http://flickr.com/search/?q=denver+airport&l=cc&s=int

I like this one: http://flickr.com/photos/ishmaelo/26056907/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.105.159.32 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 2006 July 9.

I do like waiting at midnight although it might need to be cropped a bit. I've also got a dialogue going with the rights owner of [2] to see if we can get a GFDL or CC license to it. —Cliffb 06:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Theory Site[edit]

Should this conspiracy theory site [3] really be included? It contains so many basic factual errors about the airport that it doesn't seem right to direct people there implying that what the site says is true. ——The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avsfan1321 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 2006 July 17.

I think both of them should go specifically these two. —Cliffb 16:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought about this more and Decided to Be Bold and remove these two links. —Cliffb 17:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a comment on this below. I believe there should be some mention of this and links to reputable sites. I don't have time to research right now which sites have accurate info, but I will mention that as a Masonic/Illuminati conspiracy theorist, nothing pains me more than a crackpot that 'bends' bends the truth to their own advantage. These nutjobs are the ones that give us the terrible reputation that most of us don't deserve. I simply wanted to mention at this point that we should bring back these links if we can find decent ones. MiracleMat 08:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom two links, 'Mysterious Murals and Monuments at the Denver Airport' and 'Anomalies At Denver Airport' have no place on this page. Most points are blatantly untrue and the latter is very poorly written. Incidentally in response to the above poster, I'd love to know what a 'reputable' Masonic/Illuminati conspiracy website would look like. 178.97.135.66 (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ted[edit]

I corrected an inaccuracy in the opening paragraphs in regard to Ted, the discount airline subsidiary of United. In the previous version, Denver was noted as a minor hub for Ted. While thie is accurate from the standpoint of Ted being a minor airline, it is inaccurate from the standpoint of Hub "ranking". DIA is the primary hub for Ted, with the most flights and connections going through DIA. Denver is not a secondary or minor Hub for Ted. If anyone disagrees, I invite them to check the corporate website, www.ted.com. --Tbkflav 02:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

www.flyted.com —Cliffb 03:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks..my bad. --Tbkflav 04:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Runway Integrity[edit]

I have added a new section to the article about DIA's runway/taxiway integrity. According to a recent Denver Rocky Mountain News article, the concrete used in these runways is sub-par, either due to intentional dilution by the contractor or due to the natural freeze/thaw cycle. I have tried to be detailed...so if anyone has anything to add or subtract please post it here and their reasoning...if someone finds something new I would love to see it! The article can be found on pg 21A of the July 15th Rocky Mountain News. If you look online, you can find it at *[4]. You will need to search for July 15th and for Denver International Airport Runways. The article will cost $2.95 to read, but a free snippet is available. --Tbkflav 04:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This issue seems to be disappearing and doesn't even have any awareness inside of the Denver community. Should this information still be in the article?

--Jprismon 17:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jprismon. Ultimately, it seems that you are questioning the paragraph's relevance to the article. I have one question and one point I would like to throw out there for your thoughts:

1. As for the issue disappearing, could you elaborate? Do you mean disappearing as in the problem is going away, or disappearing as in the issue's visibility in the public arena?

2. Your statement "...doesn't even have any awareness inside of the Denver community." is a position that is very hard to prove, and relies on a set of assumptions. Frankly, there is awareness in the Denver community about this issue. This was on the front page of the Rocky Mountain News on 7/15...and I think most would agree that one of the two major newspapers would qualify as a member of the Denver community. Additionally, I myself live in Denver, as do my friends, and we all consider ourselves as a part of the Denver community and are all aware of this issue.

That being said...

From a public discussion standpoint, you are correct as I don't think that people are standing around the water cooler and talking about the runway integrity at DIA (at least where I work!). However, I am not sure that in the short term that the level of public awareness of an issue dictates its relevance to an encyclopedia article. If that was the case, anything outside Sports and American Idol would quickly become irrelevant.

How about this...lets agree to edit or remove the topic if it's status does not change for a year. I am defining "a year" as the elapsed time from when the topic was added to Wikipedia. I will update the paragraph with any new info I find. If there is no movement on the issue in the agreed upon timeframe, I will edit the topic down to more of a "trivia" or interesting fact point rather than a current issue. Sound good? --Tbkflav 05:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in 2002-2003, i had the interesting opportunity to not only participate in the construction of runway 16R/34L, but to personally test almost all of the concrete used in its entire 200 foot width and 3 mile length (no small feat!). i suspect that you have your runways mixed up, and here's why:

1. the quality control/quality assurance testing during the entire construction of 16R/34L was exhaustive and thorough. we rigidly followed ASTM and AASHTO proceedures for testing of slump and air content of the concrete, as well as the subgrade soil and base material. we cast flexural strength beam specimens every 1000 square feet (as many as 16 sets a day!), tested them constantly, and reported all results. whenever randomly selected test samples failed to meet job specifications, construction was immediately brought to a complete halt in order to correct the problem whether simply on the ground or back at the batch plant.

2. we were all well aware of the failures of the previous construction as we were also responsible for replacing sections of the "old" runways. the intense pressure to not repeat those mistakes was present at every level of personnel responsible for the job, all the way from the representatives from the city of denver and the FAA who were on site every day of construction, to the union electricians who wired the lights.

3. if you don't buy my obviously biassed assessment, be aware that ball, ball and brossamer was not responsible for any part of the construction of runway 16R/34L. Interstate Highway Construction (IHC) performed this task.

i propose that you just might *might* have 16R/34L confused with the older runway next to it, 16L/34R. i also humbly suggest you double check your sources and cross check other reports about bb&b as well as IHC's website. (i just found this article to support my hypothesis: http://www.airportbusiness.com/web/online/Airport-News/Denvers-Runway-Repair-Could-Cause-Jam/4$11956) while i can only speak for myself, the construction material testing industry takes its job very seriously. (lives depend on it!) with all due humbleness, the construction and testing of runway 16R/34L was a model of thoroughness, quality, and professionalism.

70.234.134.113 04:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Destinations?[edit]

Are they really all that necessary? I just think they clutter the article.. Thoughts? EnsRedShirt 06:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the destinations are a vital part of the article. I can see why you think that they clutter the article, especially at DEN when you have both FFT and UAL's long list of destinations, but I think that they should be included because they are a "fact of the airport." Sox23 03:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they should stay. However, if you want them removed, I'd recommend bringing it up at the Wikiproject. DB (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find the airport destinations in all airport articles to be very useful, but that's just me.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be realistic...they're not going anywhere. Sox23 21:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

53 or 54 square miles?[edit]

The intro uses both. Which is it? Vegaswikian 05:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's 53 square miles according to DIA's website (http://www.flydenver.com/guide/index.asp). I also made the change in the article. Sox23 03:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources I'm looking at this morning claim Manhattan is 14,000 acres. If DIA is 32,000, that's MORE than twice the size of Manhattan. Edarrell (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Theories[edit]

There doesn't seem to be any mention on this page of the various conspiracy theories about the airport. While they may all be junk they are noteable in and of themselves and widely repeated. Could they at least be stated somewhere on the page and, if they contain falsehoods have the counterarguments placed in the section too? (I understand why external links to cooky web pages have been removed but their overwhelming factual inaccuracy isn't going to go away if we simply ignore what they say). 193.129.65.37 12:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there should be a mention. I came to this page from the New World Order (conspiracy) Wikipedia page which mentions the theory and links to this page. There is also a link to this page from the general Conspiracy Theory Wikipedia entry. So there ought to be some mention here. I found a link debunking the theories though, and it seems to be a Freemason site: http://www.masonicinfo.com/denver.htm. I'm not going to just add this in myself though, as there may be a good reason to dissent. Bokononist 02:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)bokononist[reply]

Absolutely there should be a mention in this article on the Masonic murals and manny other obscurities of this airport that was built surrounding considerable controversy. Everything about the airport, its location, hidden underground base and events conected to this airport are suspect. I realize that this may seem POV, which is why I am writing this here now to see what others have to say. I looked up this article specifically to see what was listed about these things and (on a personal note) I actually booked a layover in DIA just to see for myself what some people have called "horrific". MiracleMat 08:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone ever noticed that the DIA runways with the main buildings resemble a swastika when photographed from the air/space?? I'm not trying to create a stir or anything, nor am I a conspriacy theorist, it's just seems odd that no one notices or has brought this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.36.115 (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Never mind, I guess it would have helped me to read down a bit huh? Disregard completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.36.115 (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there should be some mention. Under "Art" there is only the Mustang, but this site shows a lot more "art" at the DIA... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.145.94.241 (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Storm-proof design?[edit]

In the article Blizzard stops travelers cold at CNN.com, I read that DIA supposedly had something in its original design to make it "storm-proof". What was that? Can it be cited and placed in the article? Will (Talk - contribs) 09:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly the runways at DIA (unlike its predecessor Stapleton International Airport) were far enough apart that the airport would never need to close because of weather. The publicity at the time said that the closely spaced runways at Stapleton were to blame for its intermittent closures. Never, however, is a mighty big word. DIA may close less frequently than Stapleton did, but two feet of snow will still close it. Even if, somehow, the airport runways could still be used, the airport would be closed in practice because of the condition of Pena Boulevard. Paul 01:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the rest of Denver. It's kind of useless if Pena and the main highways are open but the local roads leading home are impassable, though I suppose you could at least stay at a hotel and not at DIA. Of course, this only applies to people who are going to or from Denver, not simply changing flights. I read the airport cleared something like 4 million cubic feet of snow after the first storm; who could keep up with that kind of snow volume in a 24 hour period? --BetaCentauri 04:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The snowproof label was a bit out of context. The entire reason for the airport originally was since Stapleton's runways were to close together to allow simultaneous ILS approach from multiple planes under foul weather. That meant that any snowstorm in Denver had the same effect as last weeks storm, and two weeks ago blizzard had on the overall airline traffic structure in the US. There are some plans to help winterize the airport a bit better, but for the most part, there is only so much you can do to offset 10 year storms like what we had a few weeks ago. The other issue is off course Pena Blvd which is far more vulnerable to bad weather then the airport is. As far as hotels go, beleive me that the conditions where bad enough here that you didn't get into a car unless it was a humvee. I hope denver will re-examine that plan to build a hotel directly attached to the airport, or that the light rail line makes these kind of problems less severe. Jprismon 20:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping DIA open would at least mean that you can keep planes coming and going. When flights couldn't connect through Denver, the delays rippled around the nation (and maybe even internationally). So those planes would be mostly empty compared to the schedule. Will (Talk - contribs) 05:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose runways, taxiways, and apron all had a built-in heating system. All you need are a series of deep holes you put a closed loop of plumbing down into filled with anti-freeze and a few pumps to send it under the pavement. By the time you get more than 20 feet down (in non-tundra areas), the ground is plenty warm enough to melt snow and ice. Will (Talk - contribs) 00:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

size of airport[edit]

Here, it says that DIA is the 2nd largest airport in terms of size in the world, but on King Fahd International Airport's page, the 2nd largest is supposedly Montréal-Mirabel International Airport. Which is correct? Gittinsj 04:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Gittinsj[reply]

Montréal-Mirabel International Airport is bigger than DIA, but no longer handles passenger traffic, so it depends on what you mean by "2nd largest". I assume the size rankings don't include military airbases either. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
King Khalid International Airport is actually bigger than DIA as well, so DIA is actually the 4th biggest in the world in terms of land area. MEA707 04:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think DIA and King Khalid International Airport are close in land area, but, I think Denver may be a small amount larger. Sha721 (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Monorail Controversy?[edit]

The only place the monorail controversy exists is in the minds of its supporters looking for free publicity. In several years there will be light rail connecting DIA with most of the Denver area, making the monorail redundant for that stretch. Thus, if a monorail is built to the ski resorts it won't originate from the airport. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.241.41.217 (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

DIA is going to get heavy-rail, not light-rail. MEA707 03:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Regardless, the airport rail link won't be monorail and therefore this section is irrelevant. I have removed it. --BetaCentauri 05:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Country[edit]

Sun Country has removed DEN from the routemap on its website, as well as its schedule. DEN - MSP is listed as an "additional flight" under 'limited flight service'. There you will find that there is 1 flight in July, 1 flight in August, and 1 flight in September. SCY and DEN are done. Sox23 23:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link: http://www.suncountry.com/SCA/reservations/flightsCities.jsf
SCY has not had DEN on its routemap for several months-- this is how it has been. There is still service, however, so I think it should stay unless SCY eliminates the existing very limited service.
You mean the 3 flights they are going to have in the next 3 months? it's called a charter, so I'll change it as such in the article Sox23 03:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now, now, no need to be nasty... accuracy is more important than being right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.51.138 (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Dodge[edit]

Do you guys think it would be prudent to include a notation about Earl Dodge's death? According to his Wiki, he died of a heart attack at Denver International Airport. Seems like an interesting bit of minutia, but I'm not sure if it meets the criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.135.210.244 (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No- it has nothing to do with the airport except that it ocurred there. Sox23 00:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Focus City[edit]

DEN is not yet a focus city for SWA. Southwest has so many large cities that we'd list practically EVERY SINGLE ONE. So we only list the airports on its top ten destination list. It is 100% accurate to say that DEN is one of Southwest's growing operations, but there are cities before DEN that would be called "focus cities." To bring up a few, Nashville, Sacramento, and Tampa would all be listed before DEN. Sox23 00:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And according to this news article from Colorado, "Denver is only its 15th largest market." [5] Sox23 02:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Denver is the fastest growing city in Southwest's history. They started service less than 2 years ago and already Denver is Southwest's 15th biggest market, out of 64 cities served! WN has been in TPA, SMF, and BNA much longer. A focus city is not defined as how many cities or flights it has NOW, but what the airline's plans are. But since you are apparently incapable of using Google here is a source:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/08/more-southwest-flights/
It's common sense and definitely says something when DEN is Southwest's 15th-largest city out of 64, even though the airline has only served DEN for a couple years (compared to decades for the airports you cite). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.51.138 (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that sticking to empirical facts ("DIA has a growing Southwest Airlines operation. Denver has been the fastest-growing market in the history of Southwest Airlines.") is better than ambiguous, debatable jargon like focus city. Someone's common sense isn't a fact. Ashill (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know common sense is not a fact, which is why I provided a link to prove my assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.51.138 (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Southwest itself has called Denver a Focus city, might I suggest some neutral language: Denver is also a Focus City for Southwest, and the fastest growing location in Southwest's History?

Jprismon (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make that addition, properly cited, I wouldn't object. (The term focus city hasn't been used and cited in the article yet, despite the reference on the talk page.) I wouldn't add it myself, as I'm not sure it's notable, per Sox23, whereas being the fastest-growing market in SW's history is. Ashill (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just keeping to the other pages that have a large Southwest presence. Only the airports listed on their top ten destinations list have been listed as focus cities. If you have a problem with that then talk to the editors on the Southwest Airlines page. Sox23 22:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Jprismon (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPAM[edit]

The section of Kiosks has absolutely nothing to do with the airport, and should not be present. My change was reverted immediately. We would not spend the time to talk about the exact testing process of the canvas of the roof, which is a much more distinctive thing about the airport then this. Jprismon (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree; more detail is worse, not better, in this case. It's worth a sentence or two, but no more. Ashill (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also agree with that. Sox23 22:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rubbish. Of course the information on the kiosks that exist in the airport (and only in this airport, moreover) has to do with the airport. Any argument to the contrary is just nonsense. Wikipedia is not paper. There is no reason that articles cannot be detailed, as long as the information is verifiable, neutral, and not original research, as is the case here. Indeed, being more detailed than other encyclopaedias is one of the reasons that we give for why Wikipedia is so great. If you can find as many sources that cover the testing process of the canvas on the roof in as much detail and providing as much verifiable information as can be found on the kiosks, then add it to the article. You're here to write an encyclopaedia, not erase one. I remind editors that one of our goals is for every article to be a perfect article, and one of our Featured article criteria is comprehensive coverage of facts and details. Uncle G (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • By the logic of that, this page could reference every small detail about the airport and spend a paragraph on things such as the choice of marble (which was far more controversial a part of the airport's construction then the Kiosks). We are here to write a article, not a encylopedia in just the Denver International Airport entry.
    • Which would be fine if things like the nature of the tests had anything to do with the airport but they dont'. Why not create a seperate article about this type of Kiosk and link to it there. Jprismon (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because a summary style standalone article isn't merited. This article is not running out of space, and the content about the kiosks in this specific airport is only 1 paragraph. I see that you have provided no explanation of why you think that verifiable, neutral, content should be excluded from the encyclopaedia. I've therefore restored it again. Please read and familiarize yourselve with all of the content policies that I've linked to. You are here to write an encyclopaedia, not erase one. Uncle G (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that the presence of the kiosks is notable enough to be mentioned briefly in the DIA article. I do not agree that the details of the history of the kiosks improve the article in any way. Mere verifiability does not make good writing or a good encyclopedia, in my opinion. The primary source of the history is a single trade public relations firm (NetWorld Alliance); the Rocky Mountain News article is about the presence of the kiosks only. I think the Rocky Mountain News article is evidence that the kiosks are notable, but I don't see compelling evidence that the details are. What is the consensus of the editors of this page?

          If the consensus is that the details should be kept, I propose that they properly belong in the history section, not the features section, as what happened over the past five years to develop the current kiosks is not a present feature of the airport. Ashill (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

          • … is notable enough to be mentioned briefly … — You are confused. As Wikipedia:Notability explicitly says, notability is not an article content policy. Our two relevant article content policies are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. I see no argument here that the content is unverifiable or original research, and no objection that is actually founded upon our content policies. Uncle G (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Information regarding the kiosks should stay, however the info needs to be trimmed down. There is no reason to have that much info about a machine in an article titled: Denver International Airport. If there needs to be that much information, a separate page needs to be created and a wikilink to it will suffice. Sox23 23:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No. As I said above, there's no justification for a summary style breakout article. The kiosks are a part, and only a part, of Denver International Airport. I remind you that you are supposed to be aiming for perfect article, and that you are here to write an encyclopaedia, not erase one. If the verifiable information looks large compared to anything for which there is a greater amount of verifiable information to be had, then that's because you haven't written about those other parts of the airport in detail yet. It's a reason to expand those other parts of the article, and bring the article that much closer to being comprehensive and detailed, not to exclude verifiable information from the encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • By the logic of the original poster, this page should include the most mundane details about how every part of the airport was selected and built. The Kiosks do not warrent more then a line on this article, but I do suggest that a page dedicated to them might be created. Anything else disrupts the flow of the article for something that has only tangental value to the overall article. You could as easily write the same paragraph on the choice of locations for the taco bell in the main terminal. Jprismon (talk) 06:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • If such content is verifiable and not original research, yes, we can include such things. I remind you that this article isn't finished yet. You appear to be reasoning based upon the assumption that it is. Uncle G (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncle G, I read no statement on this talk page disputing your argument that the material on the history of the internet kiosks is verified or neutral. That does not mean it should be present from the viewpoint of writing a good encyclopedia article without excessive detail. Of the four commenters on the talk page, three agree that the discussion of the internet kiosks should be brief in the interest of relevant discussion. Unless there is a consensus otherwise, I will revert your revert tomorrow. (Yes, I have reread and understand all the content policies you've linked to.)
If the details really ought to be on Wikipedia, I'm happy to create a page for Internet kiosks at Denver International Airport, as Jprimson suggested. Ashill (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've rewritten the internet kiosk section to state the current status of the kiosks first, citing each fact separately, and improving the grammar. (Both previous versions needed copy editing.) The length is intermediate but all that I believe is appropriate for an encyclopedia entry about the Denver airport; if more detail is appropriate (there is plenty more detail in the Networld LLC articles, although I'm not convinced that Networld is a reliable source, given that it appears nowhere else in Wikipedia), a separate article about the Shibby internet kiosks ought to be developed. Ashill (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current version as rewritten by Ashill looks like a good compromise to me. I wouldn't mess with it anymore. --A. B. (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am still a bit unhappy with this. The SFO article, for example has a single paragraph for all of the consumer features of the airport. We are dedicating just as much to the kiosks. LAX doesn't even mention it. In my opinion, it is still nothing more then a advertisement in a prominent place about a airport.

The following statements have nothing to do with what DEN is:

  • The Shibby kiosks were manufactured by Kiosk Information Systems
  • (KIS; the parent company of current developer Zoox)
  • The name "Shibby" was invented by the 13-year-old son of KIS' president.(cute, but Has nothing to do with DEN)
  • We list 4 companies in one paragraph. None of which have anything to do with the airport.

I am sorry to be pedantic on this one, but Wikipedia is not a billboard advertising for Kiosk information systems, or Zoox. If we want to talk about DEN, why not talk about WestPac's demise there? (Because we have a seperate article about that, which at least is aviation related).

Can we at least move it below history, or the runways, or what carriers are flying there? It's a eyesore, and detracts significantly from the readability of the article. Jprismon (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to any of those changes; I would object to continuing the edit war, and I prefer the current shortened version to what Uncle G kept reverting too, which was terrible. Maybe make a new telecommunications section near the bottom, perhaps after the public transportation section? Ashill (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just create a new article, and leave a sentence about it. I think noting that there are Kiosks is valuable. Putting a advertisement isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.47.54 (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugliest airport ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.196.145 (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Redirected from Shibby)[edit]

Related spam ? --87.194.174.252 (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swastika Shaped runways[edit]

I have seen this mentioned a million times on non-verfiable references... how many times does this need to happed before it gets put in a pop culture section or something? I tried to add it once a long time ago and it got deleted, but its doesn't change the fact its all over the internet66.220.110.83 (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once on a verifiable reference. Ashill (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google satellite image shows 3 north-south runways, 2 east-west runways. No swastika. No crop circles either.--A. B. (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
so there's a thousand people's blogs which talk about this- if I posted all of them as refs it would count as a "pop-culture" thing if nothing else. However I am for reducing bandwidth almost as much as you guys with user id's, so I won't do that. But really where is the line? because we all know how many hits there are when you google this subject, lets not be naive. I know you can't say what the runway layout looks like but this has to be a candidate for at least a one sentence blurb. and yes there is a WP on crop circles, so maybe we can spare the extra space on the DIA page as well (and I do mean space in every sense of the word)66.220.110.83 (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be more relevant on the Swastika#Taboo_in_Western_countries page -- something to the effect of "the connotations of a swastika are so negative that even coincidental similarities, such as the appearance of the runways at Denver International Airport, have been taken by conspiracy theorists to have significance." I don't think it's relevant to DIA itself unless a news or academic article has some meaningful synthesis of all the conspiracy theories out there. In fact, this theory is already on List of conspiracy theories (uncited), so it really doesn't need to be here. Ashill ([[User

talk:Ashill|talk]]) 14:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

considering there is already 4 links in the "conspiracy and criticism" section I will prolly add it there unless someone asks for a more complete explanation. if there is already a link to the mural controversy then there will (from now on) also be a link to the swastika controversy. 66.220.110.83 (talk) 09:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So if you like to delete peoples writing with no reason, this is where you would post about it. If you "had" a reason that is... please remember this is a blog entry by the same author of the main Westword DIA article which goes into extensive details about the theories concerning DIA. I ask the question again, how many google hits before its notable on that fact alone? you guys keep fighting this story and it keeps getting bigger. why? 66.220.110.83 (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

added unbalanced tag to external links section- to avoid an edit war and to force (hopefully) ohnoitsjamie to give a reasoned explantion for his opinion. Here is mine- there is a lot of discussion about DIA and the swastika layout. no one argues about that. the argument is over how to explain it neutrally. I think that one link out of the entire page is pretty mild- still unbalanced but not as bad. that makes 4 links of the whole article which diverges from the "unquestioning" point of view. So I really think thats fair, considering other published articles in newspapers have stated "There's a firestorm of people talking about this thing." (http://www.westword.com/2007-08-30/news/dia-conspiracies-take-off/full) concerning the airport conspiracies. So again I think there could be a LARGER conspiracy section but considering all the deleting going on, I would be happy with maintaining the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.110.83 (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Denver Westword articles seem reliable to me, so I put in a brief mention. I don't think it's appropriate to link conspiracy pages when they're not used as references (re WP:External Links), so I deleted the criticism/conspiracy external links. Ashill (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What "discussion" of it? There's no discussion of it outside a lunatic fringe of conspiracy theorists. Nobody takes any of the claims seriously because they're all complete bunk. FCYTravis (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the treatment as it stands now, at most. These theories are really given all the credence they deserve on list of conspiracy theories. Ashill (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fine, except I think the artwork has a bit more proof than the rest of it. maybe we could mention that in some way? also I have pics of the mural that I took if you think it would help the article. 66.220.110.83 (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A picture of the mural would be fine, provided that it's presented in a way that demonstrates the interior appearance of a portion of the airport (like the other photos on the page), not in connection with the conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories certainly do not merit a picture here. Ashill (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The artwork has proof? Of what? That there was a grand conspiracy to... paint a mural? Laughable. FCYTravis (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that, no one can prove the existence of tunnels or reptiles and they never will- but a life-size mural of a gas-mask wearing soldier with a gun, kind of speaks for itself. as does a child in a coffin. What I mean by proof is that these murals are public, so everyone can look and form their own opinions, unlike hearing 4th hand stories of about underground levels etc. The westword article specifically mentions how people see these murals for themself and then start asking questions. So i think these murals are notable on that reason alone. Not to mention massive public art installations in AIRPORTS which show graphic depictions of death, burning cities, and faceless soldiers, are perhaps notable for that very psychologically dangerous reason, doubly so after 9/11. So the article already has a section on the murals, good. I have pics of the whole thing, if we post a pic it shoud probably not replicate the ones from the westword article. That leaves us the soldier, the kids destroying ploughshares, or the coffins, as far as major thematic elements left to address. Thank you to the two editors for showing some reason in this process66.220.110.83 (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC) edit- i mean beating swords into ploughshares, not destroying them 66.220.110.83 (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Posting your photos here for the purpose of portraying conspiracy claims smacks of original research. Ashill (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oh there is a billion copies on the internet- I just mean if you want a free-rights version. "portraying conspiracy claims?" writing like that makes me think you haven't seen the mural, or even pics of it. I am just "portraying" what is in baggage claim, which as you know from reading westword inspires "conspiracy claims" left and right. Serious question here- you guys don't sound like you know too much about the DIA theories, so do you know that DIA is one of the biggest conspiracy subjects in the US? I think maybe you are suprised to be asked these questions, but the scope of rumor is widening so I hope you guys can figure it out. I would be happy to explain some of it if you have questions. In the long run I would consider how much de-vandalizing I wanted to do, versus the supposed loss of face by actually having a section on these topics. I just think, five years from now this will still be an issue, and it will be more of an issue if some editors insist on reverting with out explanantion over and over again, rather than just "dealing" with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.110.83 (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the undeniable existence of conspiracy theories concerning DIA make it valid as a topic to include in the article. Simply mentioning that conspiracy theories exist does not validate or endorse them, and in no way violates NPOV. As for the runways... to me they pretty much look like a swastika, but I don't know (or care) whether that's on purpose. To wit:


Wikipedia should present the facts, and then let people make up their own minds. Iamvered (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We already give the conspiracy theories all the space and interest they deserve in this article. FCYTravis (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey look its a secret buried runway! oh no wait its before 16R/34L was complete. but there are a million websites which make the same claim. so that is another reason why it might be in the DIA page's interest to address a couple of these things head on. because only some of them make any sense, others are totally laughable. but its everywhere people. anyways I realize that it is a very functional design with short taxi distances- but the swastika only really works if you include the terminal concourses. So I understand the runway layout (to a point) but the runway layout combined with the terminal layout- that is a bit disconcerting. (like a huge picture of an evil soldier with a gun, at a major US airport) 66.220.110.83 (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The mural 'reads' right-to-left. 'Hitler McVader' (the big tyrannical soldier) in the right-hand 'before' part is creepy, but in the left-hand 'after' mural he's dead - broken in pieces, with doves nesting on him, and swords being pounded into plowshares over his head (which is a reference to the prophet ISaiah, IIRC - sunday school was a long time ago!) Peace triumphs over war. Most people's instinct, if they're Western, is to read left-to-right, but the rainbow is the arrow that the artist, Leo Tanguma, intends us to follow. Hitler McVader is spooky because tyranny, war and bigotry are terrifying things...but like Hitler McVader they can be defeated.76.66.41.131 (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
THANK you. R-L is not an unheard of reading direction, thank you. Also, the group going OMG OMG about the people in coffins need to learn their history. They are Jewish, Black, and Native American - and these are the three groups majority well-to-do folk like my ancestors let down badly and continue to discriminate against. That is why those people are there; that is why they are the races they are. I'm not an artist, I'm a history minor, and one about as un artistic as one can imagine...and this was blatantly obvious to me. Also, 'Hitler McVader' is the best nickname for that guy ever. And yes, the swords into plowshares is an Isaiah ref. 76.71.51.82 (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Some Unitarian Dork[reply]

Accidents and incidents[edit]

In articles it is common practice to document accidents and incidents in a specific section labeled as such. Please keep all accidents and incidents in this section. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After consulting Narita International Airport, LaGuardia Airport, George Bush Intercontinental Airport, Indira Gandhi International Airport, and Honolulu International Airport, it appears that it could go either way. If you choose to keep it in the new section, please make sure to move all other accidents and related information from DIA to this section. Thank you! Mononomic (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cargo airlines?[edit]

I was wondering if we could also list cargo airlines and destinations, as many other airport articles do? Antonio Your Lover Martin 9:29, 8 January, 2009 (UTC)

United Airlines[edit]

United Airlines International arrivals from Canada, Mexico and the UK are in Concrouse A. Because Concrourse B dosen't have Customs and imrgation [[User Wizzair|Wizzair 10:30 23 June (UTC)

It doesn't matter. First, we count departures, not arrivals. It is a list of destinations from each airport, not a list of origins to each airport. Second, differences in arrival terminals are already noted in Concourse A. They are not repeated in another terminal. Third, Canadian flights are domestic. All of those flights listed have already been pre-cleared by US customs and immigration at origin. HkCaGu (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horse[edit]

Could we get a picture of the blue horse?Smallman12q (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'll try to find one from Flickr licensed under Creative Commons. Can we also delete the reference to a Facebook group in that section—Wikipedia is not Facebook. Mononomic (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Art[edit]

Why is there a heading "Art" in the article? Only art discussed is the horse, but there is a lot more interesting art at the airport. Regardless of the text of conspiracy sites, there should be some mention of the art at the airport 85.145.94.241 (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm headed back into my hometown in a few days and can grab pictures of some of that art if this section is something we would like to see beefed up. I actually came here to ask if it was worth mentioning that the art was actually a requirement in the building of the airport. Any public works project over $1M built in the city of Denver must set aside 1% of its funding for the inclusion of public art. Denver's Public Art Program was established in 1988 by Mayor Frederico Pena (whose name adorns the road leading to DIA). --John (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the Conspiracy theory section?[edit]

I liked that section, it's what made this article interesting someone deleted it in February without reason and it was never put back. It was referenced with reliable sources so it looks like someone blanked it as vandalism. But it wasn't picked up. Pity...as it's just made me look stupid after a friend's relative is flying there today and I told them that there where all these conspiracies surrounding this ariport, and they said of course "Bullshit". So I said, check it out, it's all on the Wikipedia article. They then get back to me, because the whole piece has been arbitrarily deleted, and call me a fucking liar. Thanks Wikipedia and thanks for the haphazard way that these articles are managed. Especially as the conspiracy section had been agreed on by consensus on this talk page!!

  • I'll have to look at it to see what happened and what the section was like. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the section. What happened was, in February 2010, an anon IP editor tried blanking it three times and got reverted twice but on the third attempt it looks like noone caught it. All three times there was no explanation given for the removal. -- Ϫ 08:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there was a conspiracy theory section on every wikipedia page whose subject had conspiracy theories, every page would have one. the conspiracies are garbage, plain and simple. Kris1123 (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Busiest International Routes[edit]

DEN-LHR certainly isn't the busiest international route. in 2008/2009 it was flown by 1.5 carriers, with a maximum yearly capacity of about 150K passengers, however it is listed as 356K, which would require 1K passengers per day, 4x current capacity, 2.5x 2008/2009 capacity. Kris1123 (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please bring back passenger numbers for ALL international routes, not just the top 10. Some of us enjoy this information. For years this article had passenger numbers for ALL international routes. Please bring this information back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.49.25 (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Master plan[edit]

Sources[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any objections to standardizing the code?[edit]

"DEN" vs. "DIA" are scattered throughout the article. Does anyone have an objection to me standardizing them all on "DEN" (the current code,) and adding a sentence explaining the change? Ehurtley (talk) 05:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support this Mjshulman (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth worst weather airport in the USA[edit]

This article should tell the reader that the airport's weather is unusually bad, one of the five worst in the US. There's the winter snow, of course, and there's the summer thunderstorms, and the tornado warnings around June. Heavy weather at DIA has negative ramifications across the US as other flights are delayed or redirected. This is important critical information which an encyclopedia should have. Binksternet (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the following:

  • Denver Convergence Vorticity Zone
  • "DIA is 5th worst for weather delays", ABC 7 News, Denver
  • "10 Worst Weather U.S. Airports", Weather Channel
  • "15 US Airports With The Most Flight Delays And Cancellations", Business Insider
  • Meyer, Thomas A.; Bobb, William R.; Dulong, Thomas W. "Denver Air Route Traffic Control Thunderstorm Patterns" (PDF). Denver Center Weather Service Unit, Longmont, Colorado. National Weather Service. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
  • "Colorado's Front Range: Understanding Tornadogenesis in relation to the Denver Cyclone", Crystal Egger, Weather Prediction (watch out that some of this paper cannot be used as a reference per WP:CIRCULAR. Wikipedia was one of the sources.)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2014[edit]

Please delete Kansas City, Mexico City,and Minneapolis/St Paul from the United Airlines destinations served from Denver. Kansas City and Minneapolis/St. Paul are only served by United Express, and neither United, nor United Express fly to Mexico City from Denver. Standberg (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done: I've verified the schedule and MCI/MSP are not flown by mainline. MEX goes through SFO which is a hub which disqualifies listing per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. HkCaGu (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored MEX. It's every Saturday. HkCaGu (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2014[edit]

Change the thumbnail entitled "Concourse A and control tower" to "Concourse C and control tower". The former is incorrect. You can confirm via Google maps or other sources that Concourse C is attached to the control tower, not A. Wallaceicy06 (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: May I suggest that changes to desription and file name are made on Commons first? Sam Sailor Sing 06:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2014[edit]

Changing the name of the "Frontier Airlines Airbus 320-200" to "Frontier Airlines Airbus A320-200", since that is the correct name for such aircraft model. VictorCat (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already done assume you mean the picture caption Cannolis (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi Protected Request to Remove Alaska Airlines Flight to Portland (OR)[edit]

The flight list includes a direct flight by Alaska Airlines (scheduled to begin in the past) from DEN to PDX. Alaska does not have such a flight or publicly show plans for such a flight in the future. The addition of this flight also fails to cite any source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malevole (talk • contribs) 17:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done! HkCaGu (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2014[edit]

Hi, their are multiple destinations on Frontier, that are ending or going seasonal, such as Sioux City, Bakersfield, Santa Barbara, Minot and Bismarck. Could somebody update this? 72.92.38.253 (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Denver International Airport. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 19:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Airport branding has changed[edit]

Can someone update the branding? They have a new logo and go by DEN now, officially. 73.153.79.210 (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Denver International Airport. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 12:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Denver International Airport. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 06:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Denver International Airport/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

There still needs to be more references in the later sections of the article.Gittinsj 03:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)gittinsj[reply]

Last edited at 03:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 13:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Blucifer[edit]

I've trimmed the material on Blue Mustang here, and moved it to its own article. -- The Anome (talk) 07:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracies and controversy[edit]

Much has been written on this talk page about the "conspiracies and controversy" section of the article. It really should be removed. First, most of the sources are bias and purveyors of fringe theories. Also, sections about controversies should be avoided. Finally, it's so wacky and unencyclopedic. Thanks for you input! Magnolia677 (talk) 02:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Negative. The murals have not been sufficiently explained and the public has the right to know. If any innocent American were to wear a shirt with those pictures on it to an airport, TSA would stop them right away. You don't wear pictures of guns and dead people to an airport so why place it on the walls. There are questions that have not been answered here such and who, what, and why. These are highly disturbing and stressful scenes that have no place in airports where travelers are already stressed. Even if you can explain the murals as simply making a statement, the question should be answered as to why the subject of genocide is allowed in an airport after various terrorism events. If they wanted to make us happy, then they could have painted non disturbing subjects like flowers and trees. Who designed them and who asked them to be designed? Who approved the designs and why have they remained despite the public's obvious distress over inappropriate nature of the designs?

If the murals are not important enough to mention, then they were not important enough to paint. To claim that these murals are not upsetting and controversial would be a lie. To pretend that the public has been given complete and truthful answers would be a lie. To ignore the terrorism in the world linked to airplanes would be a lie. To ignore that anyone who speaks of weapons and bombs in an airport without suspicion would be a lie. Basically, these murals have been forced on to the public whether we like them or not, and unlike breastfeeding mothers, they are not removed despite public outcry against them. To claim that the murals are not a controversy would be a lie and to claim that these conspiracies are not based on the truth of all of the above would be a lie. The section should be stay as the people deserve answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14B:4401:D5C0:2959:A39A:D886:542 (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Middle ground here: the airport's design gets a lot of attention from the tinfoil hat crowd. That is notable. We should not give them a platform to spread their views, however. I'm going to tag unreliable sources that need to be replaced. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The murals have not been sufficiently explained and the public has the right to know...There are questions that have not been answered here such and who, what, and why. These are highly disturbing and stressful scenes that have no place in airports where travelers are already stressed. Even if you can explain the murals as simply making a statement, the question should be answered as to why the subject of genocide is allowed in an airport after various terrorism events. If they wanted to make us happy, then they could have painted non disturbing subjects like flowers and trees. Who designed them and who asked them to be designed? Who approved the designs and why have they remained despite the public's obvious distress over inappropriate nature of the designs?"
This is false. Every single one HAS been explained, ad nauseam. Take a look here. Had you even done a two-second Google search, you would have known the murals are about peace over war and was commissioned to be such.
"If any innocent American were to wear a shirt with those pictures on it to an airport, TSA would stop them right away. You don't wear pictures of guns and dead people to an airport so why place it on the walls."
This is RIDICULOUSLY FALSE. As somebody who has worn some pretty dark-looking rock shirts with some gruesome art on them, I have never been stopped by the TSA. Neither has my wife and she's done the same. I've seen Trump supporters wearing gun shirts in support of the military or the cops, too. They haven't been stopped either. This is something you just pulled out of your butt and it shows.
"If the murals are not important enough to mention, then they were not important enough to paint."
The mural isn't noteworthy because it's a mural in an airport, one whose meaning has been repeatedly explained, which makes it even more benign. While the mural is beautiful, it's about as memorable as a Miami Airport Margaritaville.
"To claim that these murals are not upsetting and controversial would be a lie."
No...to claim that they're not upsetting and controversial is one's OPINION, as is your take that it's "upsetting and controversial".
"To pretend that the public has been given complete and truthful answers would be a lie."
The artist was commissioned to make a mural and he made one promoting peace over war. He explained what it was about. I believe an artist over some guy on Wikipedia with no login ID.
"To ignore the terrorism in the world linked to airplanes would be a lie."
This is laughably non-sequitur, weird, and makes no sense. There isn't enough red pen to correct it.
"To ignore that anyone who speaks of weapons and bombs in an airport without suspicion would be a lie."
It's called "context" and isn't promoting violence. Are you ok?
"Basically, these murals have been forced on to the public whether we like them or not, and unlike breastfeeding mothers, they are not removed despite public outcry against them."
Get off your high horse. Nothing is being "forced on the public". It's a public place. You have the choice not to fly there, travel there, or even look at the mural if you do. And for you to compare it to women feeding their kids is one of the most misogynist things I've ever read. It's bad enough people like you helped reverse Roe v. Wade (which over half the country didn't want), you actually feel compelled to control what women do AFTER they've had the child. Unreal.
"To claim that the murals are not a controversy would be a lie and to claim that these conspiracies are not based on the truth of all of the above would be a lie."
You're just repeating yourself at this point. Once again, it's called "an opinion". If artwork offends you, don't look at it. Same with the mothers feeding their kids.
"The section should be stay as the people deserve answers."
"The people" aren't looking for "answers", only tinfoil hatters such as yourself -- who ignore the obvious answers and choose to live in fear and paranoia. Get a life.
AntiHeroDwight (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Denver International Airport. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navajo[edit]

Cochetopa is not a Navajo word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.101.243.238 (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Gates[edit]

The article states DIA has 133 gates. Further down it talks about the 26 new gates to be added. That would bring the total to 161 gates. Not sure, whether my math is wrong, but for me that sounds like 159 gates. What am I missing? Is there somewhere a clear reference page how many gates by Concourse the airport has? --FideKoeln (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updated lead to reflect details in body Michaelmalak (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I checked the Financial Report 2016. It reads there, that DIA has 'concourses with a total of 107 full-service contact gates and 40 ground loading positions.' That would make 147 gates all together. The Denver Post writes in this [1] article about '107 gates and 42 apron positions'. Does one apron position not equate one gate? FideKoeln (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe gates are being counted in this article by some Wikipedia editor going to [6] (the citation given in the article) and manually cataloging and listing the gate numbers and counts to record in this article. Some purists might call that WP:SYN, but I lean more toward including available information rather than excluding :-) Anyway, I'm not sure, but my hunch is that "apron" includes both regional gates (which are not "full-service") as well as (pardon me, but I don't know the official term for them) "parking places" on the tarmac where passengers may board. Most of the other documentation on flydenver.com commonly makes the distinction between full-service gates and regional gates -- this is the first I've heard of "aprons" from flydenver.com. It might be we need to distinguish in this article between full-service gates, regional gates, and non-gated aprons? Michaelmalak (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ www.denverpost.com/2017/08/01/denver-international-airport-expansion-manager-contract-45-million

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Denver International Airport. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

international routes[edit]

why have all the international route passenger numbers been deleted, except for the top 10? some of us enjoy see passenger date on ALL international routes, and for years that's what this Wikipedia article had. Please bring that data back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.49.25 (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory subsection[edit]

User:Billhpike, would you support the restoration of the subsection on conspiracy theories surrounding DIA provided it sources material only from The Denver Post? As discussed in conversations above, the theories and speculation surrounding the DIA are widespread and notable, even if the content of the theories themselves are essentially unsupported. I'll make the addition if you have no objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 03:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the conspiracy theories are widely covered in reliable sources, it seems reasonable to briefly discuss them in this article. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right on, I'll get right to it. I'm going to collect a few sources here first if you (or anyone) would like to weigh in on them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 03:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong
    Denver Post[1]
    Telegraph[2]
    Daily Dot[3]
    New York[4]
    Guardian[5]
  • Weak
    Business Insider[6]
    Independent [7] (BI mirror)
    Insider[8]
    Vice[9]
    Slate[10] "Atlas Obscura"
These are best I could find, if I find any more I will add them to this list. Any thoughts, anyone? Will restore the section soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 00:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Today was the first time I read about the DEN conspiracies. I am flabberghasted en.wikipedia totally ignores them. They seem to be fun and widespread, even the DEN homepage dedicates a page to them: DEN conspiracies. --91.96.250.213 (talk) 10:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.denverpost.com/2016/10/31/definitive-guide-to-denver-international-airport-conspiracy-theories/
  2. ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/north-america/united-states/colorado/articles/The-airport-that-launched-a-thousand-conspiracy-theories/
  3. ^ https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/denver-airport-conspiracy/
  4. ^ https://nymag.com/news/features/conspiracy-theories/denver-airport-bunker/
  5. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/07/denver-airport-construction-conspiracy-lizard-people
  6. ^ https://www.businessinsider.com/denver-airport-conspiracy-theories-2015-10?r=UK
  7. ^ https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/the-darkest-conspiracy-theories-about-denvers-bizarre-airport-a7808376.html
  8. ^ https://www.insider.com/denver-airport-conspiracy-theories-2016-9
  9. ^ https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/wj7nk4/we-analysed-evidence-that-the-denver-airport-is-the-illuminati-headquarters
  10. ^ http://www.slate.com/blogs/atlas_obscura/2014/03/17/the_blue_mustang_is_part_of_several_conspiracy_theories_centered_on_denver.html

Southwest Airlines Becoming a hub holder at KDEN (Denver int airport)[edit]

Southwest airlines is a big airline AT DIA, They use almost all of T3. They are the 2 biggest airlines at dia, but there is not a hub, I think we will be seeing a hub at dia, there has been talking about a hub on Twitter, southwest has said they have the idea in their hands. Southwest might not have a hub at DIA because United Airlines, And frontier Airlines a hub. United has all of T2. So will Southwest get a hub at DIA. I Thick they will, I think this will happen from 2021 to 2022.

KDEN- airport code DIA- I way to say Denver airport fast

Made in 2020 by IfA from youtube ( — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABC Ifa from Yt (talk • contribs) 20:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Com here

Re size error[edit]

135 km is 83mile not 52 as stated although 83km is 52miles 2A01:4B00:D003:BB00:A5DF:E722:8998:C (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Theory Section[edit]

Every few years or so, i’ve noticed the conspiracy theory section gets brought up again. Seeing as this has been debated since 2004 (check the first topic on this talk page), I feel like by now, we should have come to a conclusion. I belive a conspiracy theory section would be beneficial to the page, as it would serve as a place to present both sides of them (and honestly, is it not entertaining to hear the conspiracies about DIA?). Someone mentioned the possibility of using credible sources like The Denver Post (more credible then other sources, I should state). Thoughts? I’d be happy to help start that research if needed. :) --Caez247 (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(I should note, my intention is not to start a debate about these theories or whether they should be in/about the DIA)--Caez247 (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting you bring this up. I was stranded at Denver airport two weeks ago and noticed there was no conspiracy section. I found a couple of sources (one from the New York Times and a couple from the Denver Post) talking about how the airport embraced the conspiracies and used them for marketing. I think that this makes the conspiracies relevant to this page. I am just about to add my edits. Thoughts and corrections would be appreciated. I have also noticed that many parts of the page lack citations, or the links are broken and I have been slowly picking away at them. Hippopotenuse72 (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Airlines Flight 3695[edit]

Hello Wikipedia editors,

there is no page of Southwest Airlines Flight 3695[1] yet. Should someone create a seperate page or do you not want a seperate article about Flight 3695?

Cheers,

  1. ^ https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/faa-says-southwest-plane-with-boeing-engine-cowling-fell-off-during-takeoff-2024-04-07/#:~:text=No%20one%20was%20injured%20and,after%20losing%20the%20engine%20cowling..

Amogus Rundfunk (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Denver_International_Airport&oldid=1217901442"