Talk:Salt Lake City, Utah/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Featured Article?

I believe that this article is already well on its way to becoming featured article status. Do you guys agree? If so, what kinds of improvements do you guys think could be made to make it so? This article is very thorough compared to some of the other mid-size US cities. What do you guys think? bob rulz 09:13, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

I've never hung around featured articles much, but imagine we would have a ways to go. True, we're beating other large mountain west cities like Denver and Las Vegas (both of which are bigger city/metro, and in the case of Vegas, likewise unique), but we pale compared to San Francisco, or Chicago. On the other hand, nominating for featured article brings lots of attention to an article and often gives lots of feedback. Maybe submit to Wikipedia:Peer review first though? Cool Hand Luke 18:58, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with CHL. IMHO, our article is probably the best midsized western city article there is that I have seen. There are a few problem areas we probably should focus on: Economy, fleshing out the history summary, fleshing out the history article, education (maybe add more about SLC's public schools), and maybe more about culture and religion in SLC (this is probably the one city in the nation where religion and culture are central)...oh and maybe making and/or finding a public domain map. Yes and we could submit it for peer review, too :-D --[[User:JonMoore|JON, Conqueror of Men - (Talk to Me, Baby!)]] 21:22, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On public schools: I volunteer to tackle that. Someone wrote articles on East High School (Salt Lake City) and West High School (Salt Lake City) (Actually, I moved them there because there are many East and West Highs nationwide). I often follow Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, so I can testify that marginal high school articles are not well-loved on Wikipedia. I've been meaning to improve these (they're not terrible now), and write an article about the district. We could then include a synopsis here (much like we do with history). Cool Hand Luke 22:31, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeh, I wasnt thinking individual articles on the schools...maybe just a general overview of a few of the more notable schools, and the state of education in SLC. Also any notable private school. Also, there is some interesting stuff about how historically evangelical protestants built private religious schools free of cost to Mormons kids to try to convert out of the cult (Westminster College evolved out of this). Maybe you could merge the East and West High articles into the main SLC article. I'm going to work on the culture section. Also, I was thinking maybe a section about stereoypes the city is percieved as having could be addressed. --[[User:JonMoore|JON, Conqueror of Men - (Talk to Me, Baby!)]] 23:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I attend Highland High School, so maybe I could be of use there. bob rulz 20:44, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

BTW, how do we go about the peer review process, and what does it entail? I was looking over the page...but then again... [[User:JonMoore|JON, Conqueror of Men - (Talk to Me, Baby!)]] 23:15, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A couple of SLC-related articles that could use some touching up are History of Salt Lake City and Downtown (Salt Lake City). --[[User:JonMoore|JON, Conqueror of Men - (Talk to Me, Baby!)]] 23:29, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay...I'm guessing that since no one has really made very many changes in the last few days that it is ready for featured article status...I am going to submit a request for Featured Article now, so...let's see if we've done it! bob rulz 06:18, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think we've implemented all of the Peer Review suggestions, and would prefer to wait until school ends. (Theoretically, I should be doing something else.) Cool Hand Luke 07:17, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Okay, I never submitted it, so I guess we'll wait. bob rulz 23:45, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
I've been sitting around thinking about how to do some of those changes on the peer review. Did a few, not sure how to do the rest. I know nothing of the local music scene. Not sure how to rewrite the demographics. *Sigh* An impass? I need some time to think....[[User:JonMoore|Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 03:02, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just to let you know the 1.7 million metro population firgue was not incorrect. I included a reference at the bottom of the page entitled "State Analysis of Population Figures", it is located within the introduction pages of the pdf file (page 10). It appears the state government considers the metro area to be Utah, Salt Lake, Davis and Weber counties, however the federal government only considers it Davis, Weber, and Salt Lake counties. I'll let you guys decide which to pick, personally I believe the state's decision to be more precise, I think most people on the Wastach Front would consider everything from Ogden to Provo to be within the metro. Apollomelos 09:13, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

But according to OFFICIAL CENSUS figures, Provo and the rest of Utah County are not part of the official metropolitan area of Salt Lake City, and the Bureau is the one that officially and legally defines what a metropolitan area is and what constitutes each one, and according to the Bureau, Provo-Orem is its own metro area consisting of Utah County. bob rulz 11:07, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Archive

I archived the talk page up to the current discussion, as well as added a "to-do" list to direct things...click on the link below the clip board icon to find out how to use it!

--[[User:JonMoore|JON, Conqueror of Men - (Talk to Me, Baby!)]] 04:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Layout

The thumbnail followed by the infobox subtracts away from the article, in my opition... possibly simply because the infobox seems to belong more at the top. I suggest trying to find a different way of putting the thumbnail up. --[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 07:27, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, the current layout is based on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities. I'm sure we could tweek it a bit for better layout, though. For all those who regularly contribute to this article (you know who you are) I'd like you to read: Peer review: Salt Lake City, Utah, and maybe we can work on those suggestions and get our page as a featured article! --[[User:JonMoore|Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 21:08, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm curious about the implimentation of some of the peer-review suggestions (of which there is another recently added) how exactly do we make the demographics more interesting? I am going to attempt to move the Education history to its own page: Education in Salt Lake City (but feel free to expand on that, or move it back if it seems inappropriate) and maybe expand on the Media a bit...I am tired tonight though, and may not do much... Cheers [[User:JonMoore|Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 06:41, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, to be honest, the only thing I don't like about the approach of redirecting everything to another "main article" is "will people be more likely to read those? When are there too many "little articles"? I know we shouldn't exceed 32k, but when and where is it right to use them? ugh....

--[[User:JonMoore|Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 06:58, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I fiddled around with the bus pic and I think it looks good there...who agrees? (and who doesn't?) bob rulz 06:16, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
Thats where i had it originally, but someone moved it (as well as some others) and i didnt want an edit war so i left it...looks great [[User:JonMoore|Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 07:18, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I didn't move it did I? And...agree. Cool Hand Luke 07:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No... you didn't... On another note, I think we are very close to the Featured article status. We have a bit of work to do, but, damn it, i can smell it!!! 07:53, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Featured Article Part Deux

Well, I put the article up as a candidate for a featured article. The has only been one objection, from an anonymous ISP user and on the grounds we don't have a description of the city seal... --[[User:JonMoore|Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 05:26, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. I wrote a stub on the seal, but do you know anything more about it than the obvious? Cool Hand Luke 06:34, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do you guys think it's ready for another submission to become a featured article? There haven't been a lot of major changes made in the past month or so (indicating to me that most people are content with the content, including me). bob rulz 08:31, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

No. It is still a poor article. I believe the underlying reason for no recent changes is frustration not contentment. Apollomelos 21:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Poor article? What are you smokin in that pipe of yours buddy? Give me three very good reasons why it is a "poor" article. bob rulz 00:37, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sources

Have you guys considered broadening your sources of information when you research this article? I can tell you really want it to become an featured article, so why don't you check out what your libraries have? See [1] for a list of books at the Library of Congress. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:13, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Frustrated

Dies anyone else get the feeling that when we get comments on our article, that we get put in a catch-22. Example: Comment: "Education needs expanding" OK, fix fix. Next Comment: "Education should be spun off into its own article and leave a summary because it is too long." Ok, fix fix. Next Comment: "Education is too short, you should expand it." Then I pull my hair out and scream like a madman. --[[User:JonMoore|Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 02:54, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Heh. Yeah.
I'm sorry, but I'm going on vacation now (San Jose, which dosn't have straight roads or a nice coordinant system, although I'll certainly visit lovely San Francisco which does). Also, we really do need more sources. I imagine relying on our local status sounds very close to original research to some. For example, perhaps we should site that page that discusses the grid system. That said, very good luck, and if this is still going upon my return Jan 6, I'll make it my top priority. Cool Hand Luke 03:42, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Have a good vacation. Maybe you can add the references for your government section. I believe you wrote most of that. [[User:JonMoore|Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 03:56, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

History and reference sections

When you update the history section of the page, could you also update History of Salt Lake City. It seems this page lacks attention (out of sight out of mind, I guess...) I don't have time to do it myself this minute. ALSO: Whenever possible, PLEASE ADD REFERENCES TO THE REFERENCE SECTION!!! This adds veracity to our work! Thanks. --[[User:JonMoore|Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 04:43, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Peer review again

I have resubmitted this article for peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Salt Lake City, Utah/archive5 [jon] 20:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh my. I just wrote a couple of uneven articles to fill in red links (Salt Lake Community College and Jackie Biskupski), please improve. Also, I'm wondering if we should use a template for the neighborhoods section. Both the Building and Sites article and the main one could use the same template so we wouldn't have to keep the nieghborhoods in synch. As an added bonus, it cuts down on bytes in the main article. If there's no objections, I'll move the nieghborhoods to a template soon. Cool Hand Luke
Also, I was thinking of maybe a "footer" template to add to all of the neighborhood articles, too. I'll work on it and let you know. -[jon] [talk] 15:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Here are two templates I made up:

{Salt Lake City neighborhoods} Footer for neighborhood articles: {Salt Lake City neighborhoods}

{Neighborhoods of Salt Lake City} List of neighborhoods: {Neighborhoods of Salt Lake City}

I already added the footer to all the neighborhood articles. It could be, potentially, expanded to a more general Salt Lake City footer. Comments? ---[jon] [talk] 17:47, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, a footer article template is so obvious in retrospect! Chicago has one for it's neighborhoods, but I don't know of any city that has its own general template like countries and states usually have. I'll ask on the (possibly dead) city project if there's a reason we can't have one. It would be nice to include articles like history, mayors, buildings and sites, ect.
Oh, one thing: growing up in Rose Park we refered to the area south of us as "State Fairpark". This used to the the community council's name too, but apparently they recently changed it to simply "Fairpark" [2] Anyhow, the point is that it should probably be one word, so I've changed the templates.
I'm thinking about making a Roads or Streets of Salt Lake City which would discuss the original city planning and also have headings for major roads so that we don't need to write scattered articles on them. Is anyone aware of any similar article on Wikipedia we could use as a model? Cool Hand Luke 01:17, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Here is a proposed Footer for all SLC-related articles. Idon't really know if the flag works or not, though. Feel free to add anything to it:

{Salt Lake City} {Salt Lake City}

[jon] [talk] 16:10, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Actually, that's excessive. There are hundreds articles and potential articles that would meet theis threshold of notability some of these have. The tornado was very unusual, but it didn't have as big an impact on Salt Lake history as, say, the so-called "Utah War". I think we should keep the nighborhoods and education institutions, but get rid of individual buildings and historical articles, except the Olympics and possibly a very few other exceptions. Also, we should list List of mayors of Salt Lake City, and List of famous Salt Lakers. Cool Hand Luke 22:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Cool, please edit it ass you see fit! It was just a proposal :-)
--[jon] [talk] 03:38, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I moved the list of neighborhoods to: {List of Salt Lake City neighborhoods} to disambiguate it from the other footer. I will add it to the appropriate articles.

{List of Salt Lake City neighborhoods}

--[jon] [talk] 19:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Footer

Ok, I updated the footer: {Salt Lake City} Any further comments? --[jon] [talk] 20:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, what do you think of doing something like this for the various sections: {{Salt Lake City sites}} {Salt Lake City sites} --[jon] [talk] 13:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Utah Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Utah, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Utah.
To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.

Link to the very initial entry for SLC from 2001 If anyone cares --[jon] [talk] 21:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Major

I have edited the article including changed a few pictures. You can visit more images on Wikipedia Commons under Utah. Apollomelos 09:16, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have put alot of work into this article, inluding taking some of the pictures you removed. Although some of the changes are ok, I think you should have gotten a consensus before making such drastic changes. Also, the current layout does not reflect that set up in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. Some of your changes and pictures are good, but I hope you will not be offended if I revert some of them. Also, there is now a WikiProject for Utah-related articles: Wikipedia: WikiProject Utah. --[jon] [talk] 12:20, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, I am not offended. :lol: Wikipedia was made to be edited. We really need to get this article featured. I just visited Neutrality's remarks and noted she thought of Sarejavo to be the benchmark. I tried to make the layout similar to that article. One suggestion. Sarejavo's article has a people section. We could include such a sections in this article and move or try to get tid of the Trivia section. For example, Harmon of KFC could be included as a person. What do you think? Apollomelos 18:30, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
One more suggestion. I noticed the article's size is too large, is that due to the footers? Do we need that many? Apollomelos 18:35, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ugh, I just typed a big long thing, and my browser shut down before I saved! Basically, what I said is the reason the article is so long is that we need to condense the sections and improve the sub articles: History of Salt Lake City, Transportation in Salt Lake City, Geography of Salt Lake City, etc, and rewrite the sections, making them as well-written and concise as possible, putting any extra information in there. As a rule of thumb, any time you update the sections you should also update main subarticle. We should not slavishly copy Sarajevo's layout, but improve our content, and give the most important info in the main article. This will give us a good article. I like your pics, but I was a bit upset you delelted some of the old ones. We should work together to make this the best city article on Wikipedia! I didn't want to revert all your changes, because you added alot of good info. That said, as far as people, there is an article List of famous Salt Lakers you could look at. Start from there. I don't like the trivia section, some of its inaccurate, and I can't find references. Hope this helps. --[jon] [talk] 12:03, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do like the Olympic pics, but if this is ever a featured article, an open source picture is needed for the front page. I think we should keep the Olympic-dressed downtown pic, but perhaps swap it with something else: the lead image should not be fairuse only. Cool Hand Luke 23:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Breaking out sections

OK. Two sections that seem out of hand compared to their importance are "Climate" and "Communications and media". Jon seems to be breaking out Climate now, but media is dying to be moved and summarized. Would anyone object to moving List of Salt Lake City media to Salt Lake Media and naming it as the primary article? The list would just be in the bottom section of the new article and it would eliminate some strain here.

Also, I find it odd that one of the smallest cities in America with two daily newspapers instead shows a picture of the alt weekly even though the circulation of it is dwarfed by both of the dailies' Sunday distribution. That should be moved to the sub article if we make it. Cool Hand Luke 21:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but how about Media in Salt Lake City or Media of Salt Lake City? --[jon] [talk] 22:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oh yeah. Consistancy, right. That's good. Cool Hand Luke 22:52, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The main reason I placed that picture of City Weekly there was because the cover is very Utah Centric. For example "Zion", etc. Apollomelos 21:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again, when you rewrite a section, make sure you rewrite (or create) a new subarticle for the section, so no important info is lost. Thanks. --[jon] [talk] 20:42, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Sorry about that. I will do that in the future. Apollomelos 21:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

lots of photos

Well, there certainly a lot of photos on this page now. I think this may require some ordering-- it screws up the layout in places throughout the article (two columns of photos on the right, text-over-text). How about some sort of running table down theright with a consistent string of photos showing the city throughout history? The other photos could then appear in context on the left. Another point, do we really need a picture of a UTA bus? I mena, it's a bus... Another point (for which I will probably get labelled un-PC), but the picture of the Utah Pride festival does nothing-- I see neither Utah, nor Pride, nor anyone being festive or parading. I see some baloons next to a swimming pool. It's the equivalent of showing a picture of New Orleans busstation under "Mardi Gras". Can we either a) get a better picture, or b) ditch the picture?Davejenk1ns 08:27, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I really would like a picture of the Days of '47 parade in that spot, but I put it there because at the time, the article felt too barren of pictures. Now it's overloaded. Maybe we should discuss what the article needs, what is relevant, and most importantly, what is not copyrighted. Any other suggestions? --[jon] [talk] 17:47, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree. The article is overloaded with pictures and tables. We need to focus on what is important. Apollomelos 21:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree. I don't mind that it's a picture of Pride, it just doesn't have an identifiable subject. It's busy, unremarkable, and unfocused. I also think the Saltair picture should go, although it's probably good enough to put into a potential sub-article on the economy. Saltair isn't in the city any more than the ski resorts in any case (which we also don't need pictures for). Cool Hand Luke 21:40, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Should we replace the Saltair photo with an image of the airport? Or do we need an image in the economics section? Apollomelos 21:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What Do We Need To Work On?

What part of the article needs fixing? Let's get this thing featured. lol :-) Apollomelos 21:03, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Working on writing concise, good sections is important. Be sure when you do to update or create subarticles so we don't lose information! Good writing on the Economy section. --[jon] [talk] 21:12, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have a proposal. Should we combine the trivia, sites of interest, recreation and sports, and arts and culture into one large extended section entitled "Culture & Attractions" and then have sub-sections? Apollomelos 21:20, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Probably not. The trivia should be combined into the appropriate sections, but I don't think the others should be combined. --[jon] [talk] 22:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Picture Suggestions

I have a few suggestions and would like additional input.

  • Should we align all images to the right side?
  • How does the Salt Lake City at dusk image fit into the geography category? And yes, it is well done.
  • Can we further summarize the city layout and history sections?
  • How important is the plat of Salt Lake city image to the article?
  • The image of City Weekly should be replaced with one depicting a major newspaper asap. I might try to get today's Salt Lake Tribune front page scanned and uploaded since it also is very Utah centric with a headline on polygamy.
  • Should climate and geography share the same sections and be subdivided as they are both nature-related?

Apollomelos 22:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the plat could go to the sub-article. However, as a Mormon and Salt Laker I bristle at the suggestion that an article on polygamy in St. George represents this city. The prevailance of polygamy in Salt Lake is a misperception I've had to correct to countless souls at my old job (in a call center).
The sort of illustration I'd rather see would show, at minimum, both dailies (and possibly other papers). Preferably it would be on a day with religiously-charged news (like during the Plaza controversy or a General Conference) that illuminates the diverse market we have for papers. Cool Hand Luke 07:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Okay. Do not be offended by my remarks though, I support the rights of polygamists. With the advent of women’s rights I no longer see the practice as comparable to slavery. Apollomelos 21:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Article Layout

What do you think of this:

  • History
  • Law & Government
  • Geography & Climate
  • Geography (natural geography first)
  • City Layout (human geography second and include neighborhoods)
  • Climate
  • Economy
  • Transportation
  • Media
  • Demographics
  • Culture & Attractions (take the recreation out of sports and list the sites of interests in appropriate groups such as museums, etc.)
  • Education
  • Primary & Secondary
  • College & University
  • Sport Teams
  • Notable Natives
  • Sister Cities
  • References
  • Outside Resources

Apollomelos 23:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that this is a good layout, except that Sports should go up under Culture & Attractions. Val42 03:06, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

I think the best layout is to follow the standards set forth at WikiProject Cities. Also Wikipedia standards state that the word "and" shall be spelled out and only the first word in a heading is capitalized, and it should be "External links", not "Outside Resources". With errors like these it would be laughed off WP:FAC for such simple errors. --[jon] [talk] 22:11, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That's true, but... I didn't realize only the first word was to capitalized for a long time myself. At any rate, I'm with you on following WikiProject Cities. Cool Hand Luke 05:47, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Style vs. substance

I think wee need to worry less about the layout of the article and more about its content. There is a clear, concise layout set forth in WikiProject Cities which lays things out in a logical order. We need to work on the sections and subarticles. The subarticles especially need attention. I hope I didn't come off too harsh above, but I really don't think layout is the most important issue for reaching FA status. --[jon] ;[talk;] 13:28, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree content is more important however the layout at the moment is chaotic. For example we have many sections not even addressed in WikiProject Cities. That is where we have the problem. Look at Climate, would you not agree its layout is bizarre? Apollomelos 22:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Also note Sarajevo a featured article modified layout. Apollomelos 22:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I wrote a lot of that old climate section and I would like to known what you find "bizarre" about it. Climate, to me, is an integral part of life, and is severely underrated (it affects our lives on a daily basis...when I think of Seattle, I think of rain, when I think of Minnesota, I think of cold). I have personally thought for a long time that it should be on the standard layout of WikiProject Cities. bob rulz 09:07, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

We have many sections not included in the layout guidelines. The placement of climate should be near geography - it is logical. At the present time the article is poorly organized and filled with redundant statements. Apollomelos 21:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Revert 04/14/2005

I am reverting bob rulz's revert to this article for the following reasons:

  • The Utah War was not based on "false information" - we were practicing polygamy and Brigham Young refused to step-down - it constituted a rebellion as the President said so.
  • The Wasatch Peaks are about 12,000 ft. [3]
  • The Traverse Mountains do exist. [4]
  • Re-addition of redundancies - "Addresses are coordinates within the system." and "Street addresses are coordinates within the grid system." - both in the same paragraph - "Since 1979 Salt Lake City has had a non-partisan mayor-council form of government" and "although the mayors of Salt Lake City are legally non-partisan" - both in the same section. Apollomelos 21:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Okay, yeah, I did a Google source, and I did find a couple of sources on the Traverse Mountains. And perhaps you're right about Brigham Young, but in other places I heard that it was based on false information. However, you could at least state that it was declared "in rebellion" because he refused to step down. "In rebellion" makes it sound like the people are taking up arms, revolting against the government, etc, which they weren't. While the Wasatch Range does rise to almost 12,000 feet, they do not rise that high in the Salt Lake Valley. [5] As you can see here, the only ones even above 11,500 feet in the Wasatch Range are Mount Timpanogas and Mount Nebo, neither of which rise above the Salt Lake Valley. I would trust a figure of 11,489 feet more than the vague figure of 12,000 feet. Also, while maybe what you talked about was redundant, you could have at least just gotten rid of the redundancies instead of also cutting down on the detail as well. I will now be making changes that I think we can both agree on. bob rulz 00:36, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Re: the Utah War. You've included this in the lead section which I think is very odd.

During the 1857 Utah War the city became the first major American city to be declared in rebellion by the federal government of the United States

Salt Lake City wasn't in rebellion, the whole territory was. This should go into thw history article, and Utah history, and Utah War, but not into the lead section of Salt Lake City. At most it deserves a mention in the History section, but it shouldn't be written to give the mistaken impression that only Salt Lake City was the problem. What the hell is your definition of a "major city" anyways? In 1857 Salt Lake had—my sources suggest—about 8000 residents. At that time there were over 100 larger American cities.[6] Cool Hand Luke 20:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps there's some technical/legal distinction between declaring a city in rebellion, and a territory, or it was the first time a territory with such a city did so? In any event, I'm speculating (couldn't find a reference on this after some cursory googling), and I agree that at minimum this should be phrased more clearly. Alai 02:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)