Talk:Four Corners

United States: Arizona / Colorado / New Mexico / Utah Mid‑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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Arizona portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as Mid-importance).
	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!
	New Mexico portal This article is supported by WikiProject New Mexico.
	Utah portal This article is supported by WikiProject Utah (assessed as Mid-importance).

A fact from Four Corners appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 May 2008, and was viewed approximately 7,700 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that six governments have jurisdictional boundaries at Four Corners?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/May.

Wikipedia

one or two States?

I ask myself, if there is just one or if there really were two states with four rectangle corners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.147.164.118 (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merged

Should this article not be merged with Four Corners Monument. Both articles are about the same thing and there both quite small

Allard Monday 24 April 2006

No, one is a region of the United States and the other is a monument. They're both named after the same thing, but they are distinct. Merenta (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merenta's is right, yes technically they are 2 different things. One being a region, the other being a monument at a point for which the region is named. However, as currently written, both articles are highly redundant. Most of the content in both articles is actually more appropriate for the Four Corners Monument article. My vote is to move or delete the content on Four Corners that actually belongs on the monument page. Then re-do the Four Corners page with regional informationDave (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a splendid idea! Merenta (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The monument page should be moved to the Four Corners (United States) as it's an attraction in this area. The Four Corners (United States) page will probably see more traffic as it's linked from every radio station page in the area because of Template:Four Corners Radio (which is how I found this page in the first place.--Rtphokie (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain your logic? I fail to see how page traffic is a valid factor for a decision. Playing Devil's advocate, I'd say the best reason for merging is that currently both articles are short and are about at least related subjects. I think I'll let this sit for a couple of days, If nobody else opposes gutting the Four Corners article, I'll give it a shot.Dave (talk) 05:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to the suggestion that the regional information be merged to the page on the monument. The monument is a feature of the area and if anything the monument page should be merged to the page covering the region.--Rtphokie (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'm working on a re-write of the Four Corners page. If anybody wants to participate it's currently at User:Davemeistermoab/sandbox Dave (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded my draft. Hopefully this is enough to resolve the merge question. If not, please re-issue it.Dave (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit looks very good, my only suggestion would be that the article be moved to Four Corners (United States) and ]]Four Courners (disambiguation)]] be moved to Four Courners. This is a common geographical term used in severl locations world wide, no need to make these wiki pages so US centric.--Rtphokie (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(resetting indent)Thanks for the feedback. At one time this article was Four Corners (United States). I'm not sure who switched the articles or why. If you want to do it, I'm ok with that. I would ask you wait a few days, I just submitted my re-write for a WP:DYK nomination. Can I have my 15 minutes of fame =-) In the interim please add whatever you feel I missed? Dave (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Googling "Four Corners": The first four Non-wikipedia hits are clearly referring to the intersection of UT/CO/NM/AZ. On the first page of hits, only one is not referring to this Four corners. (refers to a place in Florida). So assuming Google is the all powerful arbitrator, having this be the main Four corners article may be appropriate.Dave (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if that's because google.com may be optimized for US-centric results. If you take a look at google.com.au or google.co.jp or google.co.uk a more ambiguous mix of results is evident. I'm only a casual user of wikipedia and don't really know what the editing rules are, so will leave it to you guys, but from my perspective, the suggestion to have Four Corners as a disambiguation page and this content on Four Corners(United States) seems like a good one... a little less loaded with implicit assumptions.108.7.35.55 (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Peter.[reply]

Exact location?

The coordinates given here don't match the ones on Four Corners Monument Mike Schiraldi 22:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The coordinates under WGS84 are reported by the National Geodetic Survey (see also the separate article U.S. National Geodetic Survey). They are given at this URL: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ds_mark.prl?PidBox=AD9256. See also [1] and [2]. The correct coordinates as of 2003 are 36 59 56.31532(N), 109 02 42.62019(W). If you see different coordinates elsewhere, it's either taken from a map that is inaccurate, or it refers to a geodetic system other than WGS84. --Mathew5000 23:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some mention of the fact that it is not at exactly 37N, 109W, as dictated by Congress? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.201.66.193 (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better map?

Can we get a better map, one that shows the jurisdictional boundaries of all six governments at the Four Corners? 141.155.129.168 (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting the original survey error?

Per the news stories out today (and now cited in article) the four corners monument is 2.5 miles from the actual intersection of the four states in question. That means the four states intersect near, not at the monument. What this means for the terminology of the region is unclear - is the four corners region defined by the monument or the actual intersection? Also, I put a fact tag on the claim that the Indian reservation boundaries lie on the monument. If the monument is in the wrong place, they probably do not. However, we can't make assumptions one way or another because Indian nation boundaries are not necessarily defined by the same markers that state boundaries are. Any attempt to reason this through is likely to be WP:OR. We should probably find some direct sourcing on this. Wikidemon (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the indian reservation boundary is at the monument is sourced. That's why I reverted it. Something in the lead does not need a source, if it is sourced in the body, as it should. The source used does not have enough detail to determine if the reservation boundaries are also in error, but it is sourced.Dave (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't understand is, this survey error is nothing new, it's been known for decades, why the media buzz today? Dave (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: reading the comments on the cited news article in footnote 7, it appears the confusion results from sloppy reporting and a misunderstanding regarding the reference point used for surveying state boundaries in the latter half of the 19th century (http://www.deseretnews.com/user/comments/1,5143,705298412,00.html). Indeed, the Wikipedia article on the "Washington Meridian" includes information regarding the setting of state boundaries against that reference point at the time. When measured against the legal placement of the Washington Meridian of 1868, it appears the location of the Four Corners monument is quite close to where the Government intended it to be at the time. I will leave it to other caretakers to alter the text of the article, which I feel has been "miscorrected" even further as a result of today's news story. (Ken Lacouture, unregistered user.)

After having heard a report from a local Colorado historian named "D.G.," about various original survey errors concerning the Four Corners point, I was able to verify that indeed such errors did occur, and accordingly I've since inserted and documented these errors. Thanks D.G.! Silly-boy-three (talk) 09:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the photos on this page

This article has always suffered from people confusing the monument with the region. Though a few attempts have been made to clarify, people still think this is the monument article. Exhibit A was the edits made today resulting from the AP article about the misplaced monument (which should have zero affect on the article about the region).

How about putting different pictures on this article? The current ones are of the monument. How about putting instead photos of, say, Monument Valley or from the Navajo Nation article instead? Dave (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea. Also might make sense to add a link to the clarifier at the top, something like, "For the monument..." or "for the geographic locale, see... " (Ken L.) --72.72.40.35 (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If this page is to be mainly about the region and only passingly about the monument, then perhaps the stuff about the monument being in the "wrong" place should be taken out and left on the monument's page. It strikes me as a rather minor bit of semi-old news that isn't even news at all, and wrong anyway. Pfly (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. What I was thinking was mentioning the article for the monument in a hatnote above the article. Then mentioning the monument in one other place, perhaps in the first sentence of an "overview" type section. The stuff about the not-so-misplaced marker should go. Dave (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. The "controversy" section seems to make too much out of one or two minor (and incorrect) news items from nearly a year ago. There is no "controversy", is there? Doesn't seem worth even mentioning either here or on the monument page, really. Pfly (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless anyone object, I'll do some work as time permits this weekend. I'll tone down the "controversy" section on the monument article and fire up the chainsaw on this one. Dave (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ordering image

I'd like an image with the states numbers according to their order of establishment. And/or an image with the states given their two-letter state abbreviations. --user:MartinHarper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.211.143.4 (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article for the monument, Four Corners Monument, does have images showing the placement of the states, but I'm not aware of one created showing the chronological order of their creation. The closest would be the articles showing the civil-war era debate over splitting the New Mexico Territory, at Arizona Territory (Confederate States of America), etc. Dave (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Four Corners. 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: 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} 03:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Four Corners. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20080626005051/http://www1.eere.energy.gov/tribalenergy/guide/pdfs/ute_mountain_ute.pdf to http://www1.eere.energy.gov/tribalenergy/guide/pdfs/ute_mountain_ute.pdf

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) 01:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Airports

I added Durango's airport (DRO) to FMN as it receives significantly more commercial traffic. I also added Cortez (CEZ) as I know some folks travel commercially through it. There may be other equally small airports... It might be more realistic to mention only DRO. May also be worth mentioning the closest international airports, which I believe would be ABQ, PHX, SLC, and DEN, probably in that order. Josh Powell (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]