Jump to content

Talk:Government of Colorado

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

wikisources

[edit]

s:Index:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu contains lists of everyone who was on the bench and bar in Colorado in 1917, including many portraits. Higher resolution is available by clicking on the image link at the top of each page. If you see an error in the text, please edit the page and correct it. Come grab me if you need a hand. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stimulus money to the Colorado energy office

[edit]

COLORADO - $19,688,800 awarded today [20 July 2009]

The state of Colorado will use its Recovery Act [Stimulus Bill] SEP funds for several projects designed to expand renewable energy and energy efficiency measures across the state. The Governor's Energy Office will provide a suite of products aimed at removing financial barriers to rapid deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives, including offering access to short-term and intermediate low-cost capital to projects in the commercial, residential and industrial sectors.

An Energy Efficiency for Existing Buildings Program will help state agencies, including public schools, reduce their energy use and carbon emissions. Using Recovery Act funds, Colorado will also substantially expand its Renewable Energy Rebates and Grants Program across the residential, commercial and industrial/utility sectors. Additionally, the office will promote greater energy efficiency in new and existing homes with programs such as a "whole house tune-up" that bundles efficiency incentives for homes.

After demonstrating successful implementation of its plan, the state will receive over $24 million in additional funding, for a total of more than $49 million.

Source: http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.cfm/pa_id=211 N2e (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article emphasis

[edit]

My sense is that the emphasis and scope of this article should be focused on the offices, division of powers, constitutional setup etc, and not just become yet another of the many political articles that show the current (or current and historical) particulal folks who occupy the various public offices.

The article has recently begun to put a bit more emphasis on persons and officeholders. My view is that that stuff is already well covered by the encyclopedia in Governor of Colorado and many related articles, such as the many that make up Category:State constitutional officers of Colorado and Category:Lists of Colorado politicians.

I propose removing such detail from this article, with appropriate ''{{main|...}}'' or ''{{seealso|...}}'' templates that can guide readers to where they can get the details on the personalities and people, currently and over the history of the State of Colorado. N2e (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are four sentences dedicated to the relationship between statewide officeholders, which has been here since at least 2009, apart from the sentence about the Gov and Lt. Gov being elected on the same ticket. There is a gallery tag with a picture and a name, which I think is superior to a hatnote (a hatnote is added by the templates you mention). It is neither recent nor unreasonably emphasizes officeholders. So I disagree and oppose in that respect. I certainly am not opposed to more information about "the offices, division of powers, constitutional setup etc" (with the caveat that I think this article should summarize information from main articles, when relevant.) Int21h (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the gallery, maybe switch the office and the officeholder, and make the office bold? (I originally stole the gallery idea from the French version of the government of Illinois.) Be aware that whatever major changes we decide here, I will try and implement across the other state government articles. I see no reason why such decisions would not be equally true across all of them. Int21h (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The government of Florida is also another model. It has sections for each of the offices. While I'm not sure we should have a separate section for six offices, I'm amenable to having summary descriptions of the offices in this article. This article is just a skeleton at the moment, IMO, by no means complete or static. Int21h (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is cool that you are looking across a lot of the various US state "Government of..." articles for both ideas, and reasonable consistency; and then working to endeavor to bring that about. Thanks for your comment on my Talk page.
My sense is that we simply want to avoid making the articles that describe the workings of the Governments of the various States—which will have interesting and substantive differences between them since the US is a shared sovereignty sort of Federalism system—into articles that are overly focused on the persons and personalities of the particular people who occupy the various government offices at any point in time.
This is not because info about the officeholders isn't important, or worthy of WIkipedia. But rather that that information about them is best covered in the extended set of articles that cover the various political offices in each state, and that information need not be repeated in the "Government of (particular state)" articles. For example, photographs of current and historical officeholders are more appropriate in those detailed articles, as those photos don't really add anything to the descriptive article on how the government is constitutionally and practically set up to operate. Moreover, excessive information on officeholders will tend to rather obscure the essential differences in the "Government" structure and organization and function (and history, and unique political economic and constitutional systems, etc.) that we find in each of the several states. It can also be quite hard for multiple articles that have the same information—e.g., Sally Doe is the current Auditor of the State of Arkanidafornia—to get updated in the frequent changes of officeholders that occur in the political process.
So if the current officeholders (of some subset) of statewide offices are important, then perhaps a mere list (with link), showing "as of when"-type information to reflect to the readership of the Wiki that info is time dated, and really ought to click on the link to learn more about the particular personalities occupying the office at some particular point in time. Does this help answer the questions you asked me? N2e (talk) 05:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think I agree. It is just the name and picture you object to, yes? I agree, really. I have been standardizing the articles, and this just made it through, mostly because it was being done on the Florida article, and the French version of the Illinois article seemed nice. Whatever we decide, I want to propose it for those articles which I did not add the names and pictures (Florida mainly, maybe a few others) and just make the change on the articles where I added it. That's when we'll really get feedback I think.
I am partial to completely removing any mention of the particular officeholder-of-the-hour (and their picture). It will ease maintenance, and this is the standard practice on similar articles. The problem next is: what to replace it with? We have two main choices as I see it: a simple list of offices, or a list of offices with a brief description (either in a wikitable or just a bulleted list using em dashes or colons). This is also a choice needing to be made with the list of departments, IMO, as can be seen with the government of New Jersey article being different from the articles I am dominating, and the government of New York City article. (A wikitable will not allow pictures to be used, whereas bulleted lists will flow around them. Pictures significantly help with readability and help to visualize the subject.) Int21h (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 11:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just don't think that the emphasis ought to be on current political officeholders, which is what the names and pictures of officeholders tends to convey. So I think maybe we are on the same page. Thanks for persevering with me in the discussion.
On the details of how the articles evolve..., well, that will obviously emerge over time, as whatever editors are interested come to work on the articles. Myself, I don't have a lot of time I'd likely put in these government articles. But as with all of Wikipedia, I'm always glad that there are many of us editors working in many diverse subject areas; and am glad to see you working on a bunch of these articles for consistency and shared common ideas.
Re philosophical thoughts on these state and local government (in the US) articles, I might be able to add some ideas about the high-level big-picture political economy and political science of the topic. E.g., US Federalism is a peculiar sort of shared sovereignty between the Federal government of the United States and the States; local government (whether city, or county, or village, or "district", or whatever) in the US all get authority that stems from their State governments (they don't have a sovereignty separate from their State); etc. But all of that is kind of high level and, mostly, applicable to any of the State-level articles. I doubt I'll pursue it very much; but if you are interested in some help, I would be happy to help you (and find sources for...) a bit of that sort of big-picture stuff. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "big-picture stuff" is well-worn, and for other articles IMO. But what of my counter-proposals/proposed solutions? Your identified problem, and my proposals, have been on my mind for a while. I have also identified unlimited/unmanaged lists of government agencies, such as those of the government of Florida (which maybe I solved?) and government of Massachusetts articles, as problems in need of a solution. I think we have agreed to a problem definition, but now we must agree on a solution. Int21h (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'd go with the list of offices, while only adding brief descriptions if the title of the office is insufficient to provide context. But of course, other editors may come along and expand the list of offices with much more info; if that were to occur, my understanding is that it would be ordinary wiki-process, potential WP:BRD, discussion on the Talk page, etc. N2e (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
  • "Colorado", Open Government Guide, Washington, DC: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
  • "Colorado", State Copyright Resource Center, Harvard University, Laws and legal sources that affect the copyright status of government documents

-- M2545 (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Increasing state-imposed limits on police

[edit]

Looks like Colorado statutory law may be changing with respect to the police, their responsibilities and available "use of force" authorities, and their accountability to Colorado citizens. This news story summarizes the major changes: Colorado legislature sends far-reaching police accountability bill to Gov. Jared Polis, Colorado Sun, 13 June 2020. The article says the governor has said he would sign the bill into law. If that happens, and is sourced, then some brief summary of how the legislature is limiting the power and authority of the executive (including municipal- and county-level [sub state level]) executive function through the executive's police agency power here in 2020 seems notable. N2e (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Colorado&oldid=1202174504"