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.
I added a bunch of information on what is called for in the WikiProject U.S. Counties. Hopefully this is the start to adding information on every county and major city in the state, and hopefully, eventually, the nation, much like in the foreign place articles, which, in my opinion, are much more thorough in many cases than articles on US places. We need to change that. bob rulz 06:38, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
Gellersen, you are taking this city and town designation to an unnecessary and ridiculous extreme. You are using a literal definition here, and literal definitions are not necessary nor realistic in this case. bob rulz06:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion - but what exactly is it? what is "unnecessary"? what is "ridiculous"? This is an encyclopedia - where else would "literal definitions" be more necessary, realistic and appropriate? Denvoran07:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The average person I know would consider Kearns and Magna cities. Honolulu is technically unincorporated. Would you call it a city? People do not call communities CDPs, but they will call communities cities. It is appropriate, in my opinion, to technically define it in the article, but I am sure that there are many CDP articles out there that even mention "city" in the article itself. It is technically not designated as a city, but it is still appropriate to call it a city when not technically defining it. In the article itself, you should note that it is a CDP, not incorporated, and it should not be categorized as a city, but in general, casual use, it is not incorrect to call it a city. Perhaps that's just an opinion though. The current wording is sufficient for me. bob rulz20:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What people say in casual conversation and what should appear in an encyclopedic article are two different things. I don't dispute your point about Kearns and Magna (although the only reason people think of them as "cities" is because the Postal Service designated them as acceptable place names to use in addresses - since people have to write "Magna, UT 84044" in addresses instead of "Salt Lake City, UT 84044", the automatic assumption is that Magna is a city just like Salt Lake City). On the other hand, few people, if any, consider "Canyon Rim" to be a city. Ask 100 random people at Fashion Place Mall if they have heard of a town called "Cottonwood West" and see if more than one or two have any idea what you are talking about. "Mount Olympus"? "Oquirrh"? People know they are mountains, but who thinks of them as cities or towns? You might find "White City" on a map, but it's just a handful of subdivisions surrounded by Sandy - that's a city? Do people think of it as a "city"? Since these communities (or CDPs, or whatever you want to call them) are not only technically not cities or towns, but they are also not even thought of as cities or towns by the general public, isn't it "ridiculous" to call them that? And you think it's "unrealistic" to make a few simple changes that reflect these realities?
On the infobox for Salt Lake County, in the "Population" section, all it says is {{{pop}}}, instead of "898,387". I tried to edit the page, but it showed "898,387". What's happening? Cheers! The RSJ - SPEAK21:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
