Talk:Hungry Horse, Montana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I presume that census-designated place is govspeak for unincorporated town, which, of course, it is. Glacierman 04:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, enough with the CDP jazz. I don't mind the use of it at the top of the page, but Hungry Horse is a town. Period. Enough with the bureaucratic jargon! I've changed CDP to 'town' wherever it appears in the body of the article. Glacierman 06:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Difference between the PO and the CDP

Census Bureau says the population of the CDP was 936 in 2000. They also say that the population for ZIP code 59919 (Hungry Horse) was 911. We seem to have two different Hungry Horses here. That's why I have a problem with the whole CDP concept. Glacierman 07:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem? The Census Bureau, in cooperation with local officials, defines CDPs to provide statistical data for populated places that are not incorporated municipalities. Many CDPs use the same name as a local name, which are sometimes colloquially also referred to a towns (although they are not incorporated and do not have a separate municipal government). However, despite using input from local officials, the Census Burea definition of the CDP may not always exactly correspond with the understanding local residents may have of the area with the same name as the CDP.

ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTA) are another matter altogether -- they may or may not correlate to any local understanding of a "town". They approximate the delivery area of a particular ZIP Code and may include large expanses of sparsely populated area along with more densely populated areas. For example, here is a map of the 59919 ZCTA and here is a map of the CDP. Pretty big difference. For some additional perspective, here is the South Fork County Census Division which includes both Hungry Horse and the 59919 ZCTA as well as some other areas. And here is the adjacent Bad Rock-Columbia Heights CCD.

Personally, I think the description used for the statistics should reflect what they actually are -- in this case the CDP. Local understanding of the "town" may vary and there is no incorporated municipality or other authority to define the boundaries otherwise. But if you are comfortable that the definition of the CDP pretty closely approximates that of the town, then there's really not much problem with changing most of the instances of CDP to town. Of course, if you want to talk about aspects of the town other than the Census statistics, then by all means use the term "town". older ≠ wiser 14:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)