Template talk:Utah

Major Metros

I have issues with the Major Metros section of this template. St. George itself has fewer than 50,000 people and just over 100,000 in the greater area (West Valley City, listed merely as a suburb of Salt Lake, has over 100,000). I would not consider it a "major metro" by any means. I'd like to remove this pending further input from others.

Also, I'm unclear on the inclusion of Ogden and Provo. These cities are actually part of the Salt Lake Metro area, not really major metros in and of themselves. I am not as clear on how this should be handled, but I believe only Salt Lake City should be listed as the only major metro. Thoughts? —Unclewalrus 19:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggest the "Major Metros" section be changed to "Largest Cities", with, say the 10 largest cities listed, and "Suburbs" merged into "Smaller Cities". [[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 22:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and made changes, including getting rid of the terms "major metro" and "suburbs". According to the U.S. Census, which makes these definitions, Ogden-Clearfield, Salt Lake City, and Provo-Orem are three separate metropolitan areas. In the minds of Utahns, this may all be one big city; but the Census Bureau has a rationale and standards that it consistently applies nationwide to determine what constitutes a metropolitan area. As urbanization along the Wasatch Front increases and the cities continue to grow together, the Census Bureau will likely consolidate them, but for now they are separate. Denvoran 22:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Ogden-Clearfield? I'm not sure what your source is for calling it the Ogden-Clearfield "metro" area is, but until I see a decent one I am going to revert to just Ogden. Acording to the 2000 census Clearfield had a population of 25k. Even Layton at 50k has more of a reason to be listed next to Ogden. -ZZq 08:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected. For whatever reason, the Office of Management and Budget has it listed as Ogden-Clearfield. #36260. My arguemnt above still stands that this is a rather lame name, but who am I to argue with the White House? Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/bulletins/fy05/b05-02.html -ZZq 08:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The Census doesn't make these designations based on population figures alone - I would guess Clearfield is chosen because it is the city most closely associated with Hill Air Force Base, and this, along with the Freeport Center, makes Clearfield a considerable employment center, which Layton, despite its larger population, is not. -Denvoran 16:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Actualy the Census doesn't define the Metro groups that are now in use for this template, the White House's Office of Management and Budget does. I am not saying that it should be changed, now that I know the source I agree that it should be Ogden-Clearfied. Also I am not sure that I agree with your logic of the association between Clearfield and HAFB as being the cause of this situation. Here are some google search results: (not a perfect metric, but a metric) ZZq 22:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Search Term: Number of Hits

"Hill Air Force Base" Clearfield: 19,900

"Hill Air Force Base" Layton: 22,300

"Hill Air Force Base" Ogden: 69,400

The Census reports that Ogden's daytime population rises by 25% as workers commute into the city. The only other larger city in Weber or Davis counties to also report a positive gain is Clearfield, with a 3% daytime increase. Layton loses 18% of its population during the day; Centerville, 19%; Kaysville, 20%; and Roy, 30%. Whether due to Hill AFB or otherwise, Clearfield appears to be a relatively important employment center, and this would explain why the Office of Management and Budget designates it, along with Ogden, as a "principal city" of its metropolitan area. -Denvoran 02:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting numbers. Not that I don't believe you but what is your source? I guess that could explain it, but 3% isn't much. My personal theory is that someone called in a favor in the good ol' boy network and had it changed. ;) I guess I'll have to get used to living in a metro area with such a lame name. <g> ZZq 07:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

As stated, the U.S. Census Bureau is the source. I'm sure there is a formalized methodology for making the designations, otherwise there would be unending complaints, protests and requests - not to mention metro area designations with six or seven city names in them. Would "Ogden-Layton" be any less "lame"? -Denvoran 20:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

A bit yes. But you are right, I'm sure that there is some sort of methodology to it. Thanks for having a nice back and forth with me. ZZq 00:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

In addition, since Saint George now has over 50,000 people, the US Census Bureau now officially defines it as a metropolitan area. They don't just release metro info every 10 years you know. ;) bob rulz 23:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

St. George vs. Saint George.

The offical spelling for the city of St. George or (Saint George) is with the word saint abbreviated.

And St. stands for Saint. Since St. stands for Saint, in my honest opinion, "saint" is just as official as "st.". bob rulz 03:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

U.S. state templates

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states/state templates lists and displays all 50 U.S. state (and additional other) templates. It potentially can be used for ideas and standardization. //MrD9 07:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Standardization of state templates

There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding standardization of state templates (primarily regarding layout and styling) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. states/state templates. An effort was made earlier this year to standardize Canadian province templates (which mostly succeeded). Lovelac7 and I have already begun standardizing all state templates. If you have any concerns, they should be directed toward the discussion page for state template standardization. Thanks! — Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 23:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Regions

The "Regions" section seems to leave out a few big portions of the state. There is not currently a Wikipedia article on the Uinta Basin, but the Colorado Plateau contains roughly 1/3 of the state's area (much larger than the Great Salt Lake Desert which is included in this section). There is no region listed which includes the western 1/4 of the state (which is part of the Great Basin) and there is no region including the central plateaus between the Great Basin and the Colorado Plateau.

Should this section be inclusive of the entire state or is it just a "greatest hits" collection of Utah's regions? Should it include the major physiographic provinces, or just more localized regions such as the San Rafael Swell?

As it is now, this section looks a little biased toward the populated areas of northern Utah. For example, which regions include Moab, Vernal, Cedar City, Delta, Blanding, Manti, Kanab, Price, Richfield, or even Tooele?

I would propose that, at a minimum, the Regions section should add the following: The Colorado Plateau, The Uinta Basin, Central Utah Plateaus, and the Great Basin portion of the state, which would include the western portion of the state which does not drain into the Colorado River or Great Salt Lake (Juab, Millard, Beaver, and Iron Counties, etc)

Justin 23:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Most of the state isn't covered. The list is definately biased twords the most populated regions (Wasatch mostly). Jaxad0127 05:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Color

Is there a particular reason why this template is peachish coral? Wouldn't it be better to just go with the default used by {{navbox}} to avoid having a rainbow at the bottom of the page when this navbox is next to another one and per WP:ACCESSIBILITY? Please let me know if there is a strong reason to have it a particular color. I noticed this was attempted recently, but was reverted, so I thought I would be proactive and start a thread here to avoid an edit war. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Since there are no objections, I will go ahead and make the change. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)