Talk:Salt Lake City/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Arts and Culture

In the art and cultures section, it sounds as if the writer is proud that Salt Lake City is a place where poisonous, addictive substances such as cigarettes and alcohol are readily available. Perhaps this section is a candidate for rewording? While it's true that addictive substances and homosexual parades are available in Salt Lake City, anyone who considers these to be an accurate representation of the culture of the city is probably fooling themself. I am LDS and live in Las Vegas, and there are a lot of great LDS people here - but I would be misreprenting Las Vegas if I advertised our strong LDS community toward the top of the Las Vegas page. Rmisiak 02:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, this city is noticeable less LDS than the rest of the state. Within Salt Lake City proper (exclusing metro, as we have been), Mormons are a minority. The relative diversity of the city is reflected in things like the relative density of bars, the Greek festival, gay parade, and even the succesful, first-ever J-town festival last weekend.

However, I'd like to take a few of the mentioned lines out of the article just because they pertain to Utah, not Salt Lake City. For example, it may be true that California has stricter smoking laws than Utah, but for an article that needs to cover everything from Brigham Young, to Sugar House, to the 2002 Olympics, there's no space for apparently off-topic material. Cool Hand Luke 02:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

What? It's not off-topic. It's a more relevant part of the culture than you may think, and it is a very common misconception that Salt Lake City is a strict Mormon city. And, you do know that Salt Lake City is IN Utah right...? I hope so. bob rulz 03:33, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I think the article is better without that paragraph, it seems somewhat defensive to me, it's intent seems to be to overcome a POV rather than to present information. It's just not encyclopedic somehow. (I live in Utah, am not LDS and do drink!) Bob Palin 03:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Saint George to replace Salt Lake as most populated city by 2040

Interesting:

2040 estimates forecast Salt Lake at 212,976 and Saint George at 247,703

Maybe Salt Lake City on WikiTravel would be a better local for this info? It's a travel guide.--[[User:JonMoore|—JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 20:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Whoa, really? I never knew that St. George could surpass Salt Lake populationwise! Also, I read the report, and by 2050, it's estimated that St. George would have 317,000+ people! The Runescape Junkie 15:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I wouldn't trust those figures at all. It says that cities that are already fully buiit-out will continue to grow. It relies pretty much on current growth rates and assumes that cities will magically keep growing forever. Yes, it is possible that Saint George could become larger than Salt Lake City, but I myself find those population estimates pretty unlikely. For example, to look at the very first city; why would Beaver grow to 7,000 all of a sudden when it's hardly grown at all in the past 30 or 40 years? bob rulz 19:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, now that I think about it, these really aren't good figures. For example, is Eagle Mountain really gonna grow to over 100,000 people in 44 years? ←T•h•e R.S.J.→ 15:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually wouldn't be surprised if Eagle Mountain grew to a significant size in that amount of time. Its grow-out population is over 200,000, and it's growing really fast. Maybe not 100,000 by that time, but 75,000 maybe. Yes, I do think it's possible. However, what I'm really skeptical about is things like Cedar City at 70,000, Sandy at 123,000 (when it's already almost fully built-out), Midvale at 53,000 (there's no way it could grow anymore than a couple of thousand unless they built a huge cluster of super-tall apartment complexes), Coalville at 7,000 (when it's hardly grown at all recently), Cottonwood Heights at 50,000 (it has very little room to grow, too), etc. At second glance, overall they're not quite as exceptional as I originally thought them to be, but there's still some very skeptical figures in there. I would trust the current estimates and the estimates for, say, up to 20 years out, however. bob rulz 16:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

A major part of the prediction for future population is the city's physical size (square miles). Apparently Eagle Mountain has an incredible amount of space, and potential for more through annexation. I will also agree though that the estimates can be misleading as many of their figures seem to have populations above what the city size can account for (unless mass urban density and mid and high-rises are built, which usually happens later on in a city's life). --UtahStizzle (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh, urban sprawl, eh? The RSJ - ^SPEAK_{The RSJ at the RS Wiki} 04:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Southern Salt Lake County and northern Utah County should be declared the Kings of Urban Sprawl. bob rulz 04:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think parts of California would have something to say about that. --UtahStizzle (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Polygamy really "widespread"?

I remember reading that less than 1% of the Mormons in Utah were in a polygamous marriage. Is this really "widespread"? This article says it is in the history section.

Yeah, exactly. It says it in the history section. Notice the key word here. History. Before the 1890 Manifesto, I believe approximately 40% of Mormons were polygamous, although I might be off. That would be considered widespread. bob rulz 06:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Peer review

I'm resubmitting this again for peer review. I was rewriting the article and working towards another FA when an anon went and resubmitted it for FA without discussing it on this page, and the article has been improved even since then. So, I'm deciding to peer review it again. bob rulz 02:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Featured article

Now that all the image problems have been taken care of I suggest we submit it for a FAC. 144.35.254.12 21:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks better than it ever has. No lists, no image problems, no oversized or undersized sections...perhaps I will submit it to FAC again in the next couple of days. bob rulz 13:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I am for it. 71.213.75.226 04:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, we need to do a few things here. First off, we need inline citations. I don't know how to do them or where most of the info in the article came from, except for the neighborhoods and transportation sections, which are essentially local knowledge, and climate, which came from the NWS. Also, there still seem to be a few image problems. Seriously, this has been submitted, like, 5 times and its been so close every time. bob rulz 08:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. It has. And evidently the Wiki instituted new rules banning the use of images that can't be used for commercial purposes for free or be modified and re-used for free. 144.35.254.12 23:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That rule's been around for as long as I can remember, they're just enforcing it more...bob rulz 01:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I just went through and made some changes that I think improve the article. I added a few details in that I think are important or interesting, and I cleaned up and cut down the economy section (it may need more clean-up), since it was a bit technical and unproportionately long. For this to become a featured article, we also need to cite more sources. We have a lot of references and a few external links, as well as a rudimentary notes system, but we still need to do just a bit more. First off, the economy section needs clarification and references if it is to become a featured article (for example, what is "Class A" office space?). Also, the events section needs to be expanded. Surely we can do that? There's got to be more to say about events in this city (I don't know a whole lot about the culture in this city, so somebody else will probably need to do that). So, basically, we need to expand the events section, cite our sources (especially in the economy section), and create a system of inline references (or notes, or whatever). One more important note: Submit it to peer review before submitting it to FAC again! That is very important!!!! bob rulz 03:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks to whoever finally fixed all the image problems (and added new ones too!). It gets rid of the biggest burden we had. bob rulz 03:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Demographics table

Salt Lake City is more racially diverse than the state of Utah as a whole. For example, a comparison of the racial make up of Utah versus Salt Lake City:
Utah	Salt Lake City	Ethnicity
85.3%	79.20%	White
9.0%	18.85%	Hispanic
0.8%	1.89%	Black
1.3%	1.34%	Native American
1.7%	3.62%	Asian
0.7%	1.89%	Pacific Islander
N/A	8.52%	other
2.1%	3.54%	mixed

The Salt Lake City column adds to over 100%. I assume multiple responces may create this, but there's a 'mixed' catagory so I would assume it should still add to about 100%. — Zaui (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Industrial banks

"Because Utah is home to by far the majority of the commercially owned ILCs, we highlight the supervisory practices Utah and the FDIC have employed with respect to the ILC-parent relationship."[1]

[2] A list of industrial banks with state charters. The vast majority are in metropolitan Salt Lake. 71.213.29.162 21:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"Metropolitan" being the operative word: of the banks listed, only 7 of them are in Salt Lake City, while 25 are in neighboring cities. Denvoran 22:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sites

Leaving this for future reference. In the next few days I plan on improving it more.

Salt Lake City's downtown core houses a collection of old and new structures, with many twenty-plus-story steel and glass towers adjacent to late 19th-century brick and mortar. The tallest building in the city is the Wells Fargo Center, at 24 stories and 422 feet (128 m), although the LDS Church Office Building has 28 stories and actually appears higher as it stands on slightly higher ground. The Wells Fargo Center is sometimes referred to as the American Stores Tower, though the grocery chain American Stores never moved in as it merged with Albertsons in 1999. The building was subsequently sold to Wells Fargo. The third highest Salt Lake skyscraper is One Utah Center, adjacent to the Wells Fargo Center.

As the headquarters for the LDS Church, several top tourist draws exist in and around downtown Temple Square, including the Salt Lake Temple, the historic Tabernacle, and the newer LDS Conference Center, which seats about 20,000. The LDS Genealogical Library, just west of Temple Square, ranks among Utah's most popular tourist destinations (along with Zion National Park). Another popular attraction is the architecturally unique Salt Lake City Public Library, currently one of Utah's top attractions.

Future plans for Salt Lake include the Living Planet Aquarium (which is already running on a limited scale at the Gateway Mall) and the Leonardo, a multifaceted art, culture, and science center. The Leonardo will be housed in the old Salt Lake City main library building. At the east end of the city, the University of Utah is the location of the Utah Museum of Natural History and the Red Butte Garden and Arboretum at the mouth of Red Butte Canyon.

At the mouth of Emigration Canyon at the east end of town lies This Is The Place Heritage Park, a park that re-creates typical 19th-century Mormon pioneer life. It is located at the point where Brigham Young stated, "This is the right place," when he looked out over the Salt Lake Valley in 1847. Just across from This Is The Place Heritage Park lies Hogle Zoo, which has recently bought empty land next to This Is The Place for future expansion. Other top attractions include the historic Trolley Square shopping district, Liberty Park (home to the Tracy Aviary), Sugarhouse shopping district, and nearby locales outside of the city limits such as the ski resorts and shopping centers of Park City, Thanksgiving Point and dinosaur museum in Lehi, the Great Salt Lake, and the Bonneville Salt Flats, far to the west in the Great Salt Lake Desert.

MSN Encarta must visit

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577046_6/Utah.html

"In 2000 some 88 percent of the total population lived in urban areas. Utah is the sixth most urbanized state in the Union. Yet vast areas of the state are almost uninhabited."

Wikipedia Utah's page:

"Utah's population is highly concentrated and among the top ten most urbanized in the U.S. 88% of the population lives in what the Census Bureau defines as urban. Vast expanses of the state are relatively uninhabitated."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utah&oldid=41307147

I inserted this statistic and sentence awhile ago... and I looked at Encarta beforehand and it did not have anything about it at all. I used a Census book at the library and made a list by hand to figure it out. Encarta just recently updated their Utah articles.... has anyone else noticed that they must have visited Wikipedia to help gather facts for them? Its kind of nice... I mean its a two-way street... I used them for Salt Lake City's history section. Has anyother Utah Wikipedia contributors noticed their information was chosen for Encarta's newly updated articles? 144.35.254.12 21:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat off-topic, but I'm hoping brittannica (and others) will do the same thing and stop claiming Utah Lake is the largest natural freshwater lake west of the mississippi. This innaccuracy can be found in two other sources I can think of... --Lethargy 02:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Streetcars in Salt Lake City

The History section indicates that the city's streetcars were shut down in the 1940s and not re-established until 1999. However, during a vacation trip in the 1980s, I spent some time in Salt Lake City (family car broke down, unplanned layover while it was repaired), and I distinctly remember travelling around the city in streetcars. Someone with the know-how might want to investigate this matter further for clarity's sake. Pennyforth 16:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what memory you could be recalling, because I can tell you for a fact that Salt Lake City did not have streetcars in the 80s, especially around the city. Also, this link, which is the only source I can find for an in-depth description of the history of public transportation in Utah, states that the entire system was dismantled by 1945. I don't know what exactly your memory could be, because I'm positive that streetcars didn't exist in Salt Lake City during the 80s. bob rulz 02:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that before they installed Traxx, there were buses that looked like street cars. Val42 04:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The streetcar lines were paved over by 1945, and all that remained were the metal towers which had held the electric lines, and which had been converted to streetlight standards. 208.110.158.207 07:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it was one of the streetcar-like buses that I rode in Salt Lake City. All I know for sure is that, upon consultation with everyone present on the aforementioned trip, we all remember riding something that looked like a street car around the city, particularly from our hotel to the Temple square. -- Pennyforth 14:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you were riding a so-called trolleys that were trolley-shaped buses like this.--Loodog 15:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

References and peer review

I have made some changes to the article that I think are a major step towards this article becoming a featured article. I will never give up trying to get this to featured article status! The image problems from long ago were worked out, and I have added some references and updated the article. I've split the transportation section (it contains all relevant information but was too long to maintain as one section) and have drastically reduced the size of the economy section (which was far too large; I moved the deleted info off to the Economy of Salt Lake City article). However, a lot of the article still needs references, although I still feel like it's unsatisfactory for featured article status, and I think at the moment that's the only major hurdle. Unfortunately, two major contributors of the past haven't been on Wikipedia for a while (User:JonMoore and User:Cool Hand Luke) and it may be hard to find references for content they contributed. So, if everybody who has contributed to this article could provide references for stuff that cannot be directly verified, that would be great. In addition, I've added some {{Fact}} tags to places that I feel need a citation (the places I added it to I know are true, but I still think they need references). I will begin to look for references on the Internet, but I won't be able to find everything.

In addition, I'm going to put this up for peer review soon (soon as in an hour or less), so hopefully no one objects, because I'm going to do it. bob rulz 10:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer review up now. Anybody who contributes to this article...could you give your feedback? It would be appreciated. It feel it's so close to FA status, and this time I know it's actually true! bob rulz 11:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Separation of church and state POV

"The separation of church and state is the most heated topic with an ongoing Bridging the Religious Divide campaign."

It seems POV to state that this is the most heated topic. How do we determine what is the most heated topic? --Lethargy 22:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There really is no way to determine that. I've never liked that sentence; I don't know what the Bridging the Religious Divide campaign is and there's no true to way to determine what "the most heated" topic is. Perhaps we could remove the latter section (unless we can find a source) and just make it say something along the lines of "the separation of church and state is among the most heated debates within the city today." That seems like a reasonable compromise to me. bob rulz 22:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of the "Bridging the Religious Divide" campaign either, so I don't know how significant it really is. The rewrite by an anon looks better, but it still might be POV. Also, unfortunately I can't find the referenced SLTribune article online, the closest I found was this: Crossing 'The Great Divide', can anyone dig up the article online somewhere? --Lethargy 15:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

See 144.35.254.12 22:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where that was copied from, but I found a source which better explains what this is: Salt Lake Tribune - Mormons, non-Mormons clear the air

Gay bishop and rabbi

The paragraph about the gay episcopal bishop and rabbi seems out of place in the history section, any ideas on where we can move it? I also wonder if this even belongs in this article, or if it is better suited to articles covering those churches? --Lethargy 20:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Idaho Obviously Doesn't Like Us...

In the potato article where it's reported the potato company (sorry for being vague) is moving to Salt Lake says in the beginning:

Lowly Utah, whose best potato year was in 1946, has beat out the nation's potato powerhouse for a national cooperative's new headquarters.

Idaho out-potatoes Utah's annual crop by more than 410 times. Even with its record harvest 60 years ago, Utah's production was less than 2 percent of the amount that Idaho grew last year.

Although Utah's ranking is a mere No. 33, the United Potato Growers of America has relocated its offices from Twin Falls to be closer to the Salt Lake City International Airport. In fact, its offices are adjacent to the airport on North Wright Brothers Drive.

Hmm... they sound like they don't like us... Notice the "Lowly Utah" and how they keep saying we don't produce as much potatoes as them. Comments, anyone? The RSJ - ^SPEAK_{The RSJ at the RS Wiki} 04:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

An obvious violation of Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy. If you can clean up the article to be more neutral that would be great, otherwise it needs the {{POV}} template. --Lethargy 21:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless, of course, you were referring to an article published in a newspaper or magazine. :)--Lethargy 02:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I shoulda made myself clearer, I was referencing a magazine article... Cheers! •The RSJ ^{(Central—Say What?!)}• 16:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey on proposal to make U.S. city naming guidelines consistent with others countries

There is a survey in progress at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) to determine if there is consensus on a proposed change to the U.S. city naming conventions to be consistent with other countries, in particular Canada.

This proposal would allow for this article to be located at Salt Lake City instead of Salt Lake City, Utah, bringing articles for American cities into line with articles for cities such as Paris and Toronto.--DaveOinSF 16:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

However the proposal would allow U.S. cities to be inconsistent with the vast majority of other U.S. cities and towns, which (with a few exceptions) all use the "city, state" convention. -Will Beback 23:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they should only use the city, state layout when there's more than one city with the same name... The RSJ ^¿Qué? 00:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Neighborhoods and layout

I think the neighborhoods and layout sections are too long. Does anybody else agree? I suggest we summarize both to one paragraph each. I really think this article suffers from a poor- priortization of information. The order of the sections are another thing I'd like to change. I noticed there is a suggested template but none of the cities with FAC status follow it. I am aiming to re-do one section per-day starting tomorrow. Things I'd like to bolster-up include arts, nightclubs, coffee-houses, hospitals, etc. Featuresaltlakecity 02:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm gonna throw my two cents in here and suggest that you keep it. I only recently went to SLC and got incredibly lost. It wasn't until I got on the wiki that it started to make sense. As an "outsider", I can tell you it was helpful. Shinku Hisaki 08:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

New pictures

Of the pictures that User:Streamline1989 has added so far[3], I'm inclined to removed the "part of downtown" picture as redundant. The polygamist gathering should also be removed because it's of poor quality (no real subject) and it might mislead readers about the prominence of of polygamists in Salt Lake City. If we want such a picture, I have some better images from the Bush protest (which is similarly misleading, but in a non-stereotypical way). I don't think we need such a picture though. Cool Hand Luke 22:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree the article doesn't need two pictures of downtown Salt Lake City. IMO Image:DSCN0437SLC.JPG is superior because it includes a nice view of the mountains. As to the "teens from polygamous families" photo, is it not a picture of a real, newsworthy event? The article states elsewhere that polygamy has been renounced, so if the teen gathering is indeed real (and I do find such an event mentioned HERE), then the photo and caption would seem to lend a balance. Bush protests can be found on every third street-corner, so a picture of one wouldn't bring much new information to the world. --CliffC 00:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

How much coverage did the polygamist gathering get? Much less than the Bush protest, both within Utah and out-of-state. A couple of reasons for this. First, the Bush protest had about five times the attendence (1500 seems to be the lowest-reported figure for the 2006 Bush protest vs. 300 for polygamy). Outside media also incorrectly treated the Bush protest as a man-bites-dog story. Salt Lake City (as opposed to Utah) is much more liberal than most commentators assume, leading to repeated shock over such a protest in the "middle of Bush country."

In any case, it's not clear how we can include one and exclude another unless departing from NPOV. I don't think we need to argue though; niether picture should make the cut.

There are hundreds of events more newsworthy and important that have happened in Salt Lake City. If these merit inclusion, then what doesn't, honestly? This is not the article for the history of polygamy nor is it even dedicated to the history of Salt Lake City. It's an article about the whole city. We already have too many pictures, and I do think that the polygamy photo (along with redundancies and probably the cover of the City Weekly) should make room for their more significant siblings. This photo is particularly misplaced in the politics section with no supporting copy, which leads to the incorrect assumption that polygamy is relevent to Salt Lake City politics. Give it to Utah, where polygamy does have political dimension, at least within law enforcement. Cool Hand Luke 01:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Streamline1989 02:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC) I added the new picture of part of downtown because I rarely see a picture from this angle, because it makes downtown look more condensed, and yes, it shows the mountains better. Also, on the subject of the polygamy photo, I put it in the law and government section, because there IS a large presence of polygamists in Salt Lake, esp. when compared to other places in the US, and because there is actually a good deal of coverage given nationally and internationally to polygamy. Go to www.sltrib.com. They have a section devoted ENTIRELY to polygamy. How many other major U.S. city newspapers have a polygamy section on their website? I think that this subject is just a thorn in the side of Cool Hand Luke. As for there being too many pictures, I think there are almost never enough. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. I think there ought to be pictures of the Cathedral of the Madeleine, and a few pictures of the Delta Center(whoever came up with "EnergySolutions Arena" needs their brain examined), Franklin Covey Field and Rice Eccles Stadium. Thank-you for your support User:CliffC.

Streamline1989 02:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, well, I wasn't "supporting" anyone or anything, I'm just a bored old guy from the East Coast weighing in on an article that showed up in Recent Changes, and trying to lend a neutral view to one tiny aspect of the article. --CliffC 03:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely there are reasons to include other pictures, but there's thin reason to include 3 pictures of the library. If we allow that, we should just copy all the pictures from commons here right now.

I don't give a damn about polygamy, but I care a lot about acuracy. Perhaps you should turn your talents toward writing about it's significant effects on Utah politics. City government is not impacted by it. Cool Hand Luke 03:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

How about showing the city flag and seal like a number of other US cities articles--see Saint Louis, Missouri for an example?Russellane 05:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Russel Lane.