Talk:Wasatch Front

message: Would someone please post the pronunciation of Wastach?  Thank you. Rmisiak 22:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just like it's spelled: "WAH-satch" "Wa" like "wa"-ter, "satch" like "satch"-el. — —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying that "wa" is pronounced like the first syllable of "water" doesn't help, since there are two (three, if you count the Philadelphia area) major different pronunciations of that syllable in US English alone. Maybe saying it's pronounced like "wah" would work, since that'd likely be pronounced the same throughout much of the English-speaking world. In any event, "Wasatch" is pronounced [wɑ.sætʃ], with stress on the first syllable. DBowie 17:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wasatch" pronunciation 

message: I have removed the image to the right from the article. I think that it is missing a good portion of the Ogden-Clearfield metro area, and perhaps other areas in the other two metros that I'm not as familiar with. I would like to thank the user who created and uploaded this image, but I'd request that they provide the source they used when deciding where to place the green line. On a related note, we should come to a consensus as to what should be used as the northern and southern boundries for the Wasatch Front. As a local to the area, I have always thought of the areas as going from the Weber-Box Elder County line on the north and to the break in heavy population to the south of the Provo-Orem area, but this is just one man's opinion. Does anyone have, or is there even, a "source" for what is considered to boundaries? This is a great article, but we either need to find some sources (see WP:CITE), or change the wording to reflect that this article is based on "common" knowledge.—A 08:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I live here too, and I've never heard the Box Elder/Weber County line defined as the northern edge. I've always heard Brigham City at the north, and either Spanish Fork or Santaquin for the southern end. I don't think there's any "offical definition", just a common definition. bob rulz 20:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have no argument with Brigham City being what we use for the northern end, as I have seen that used many places. The text of this article used to use the boundries that you mentioned, but they were removed some time ago. Would anyone have a problem of this information being added back or should we find something more "official" to use as a definition? —A 03:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing the misleading image again from this article, the boundaries are wrong. No information is better then bad information. Also removing the image from my post above. No one came forth to fix the image before so I don't think anyone will now. Keeping it on this talk page just encourages other people to say "Ooo pretty picture, I'll put that in the article." —A 07:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that Ogden is NOT the southern end, but rather Santaquin. If a megalopolis is "a group of metropolitan areas which are perceived as a continuous urban area through common systems of transport, economy, resources, ecology, and so on" (Megalopolis) then Santaquin or even Rocky Ridge forms part of that continuum. By the same token, Logan is excluded because it is in a separate geographic basin that is separated from the cities of the Wasatch Front by a chain of mountains.  Google maps shows the continuum of cities in gray. Carpenter, Kenneth (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have an actual source anywhere for the boundaries? I grew up in the area and my gut feeling would have been Pleasant View to Spanish Fork. Maybe Brigham City to Santaquin if you wanted to be a little more generous. But absolutely not Logan. Cache Valley and Wasatch Front are two distinct regions in the minds of the locals. A simpler definition might be simply the four counties of Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah. Highway 89 (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northern and southern boundaries 

message: The map captioned with "Utah's population density, featuring the long Wasatch Front" isn't a population density map, it's a map showing the populations of Utah's municipalities, without regard to area. I would have just changed the caption, but the name of the image is Utah_Municipality_Population_Density.png, and I'd like to fix the misleading file name, as well, but haven't been at this long enough to know for sure how to do that. (Also, there's a pointer to it from the Talk:Utah page, too, and I don't know if renaming the image would break that link.) DBowie 18:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody changed the caption of the map from population to population density (so I reverted the change). Once again, despite the legend on the map itself, this appears to be a map showing municipal populations, not population densities. I don't know how to fix the map--I don't have much experience with images, and the file name itself is problematic. Anybody out there know what to do with this? Alternatively, if someone wants to do a population density map that really does show population density, I think that would be a better map to include here. DBowie (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mislabeled map 

message: This article doesn't mention where the word "Wasatch" came from.  The Wasatch County article says that the county "was named for a Lite Indian word meaning mountain pass or low place in the high mountains."  I assume that "Lite" is a typo there, and that it should be "Ute".  Additionally, the Wasatch Range article says, "The name Wasatch is derived from an eponymous Native American tribe in the region."  Neither article cites any sources.  If anybody can locate an authoritative definition and origin of this word, it should be cited in this article and in the other "wasatch" articles.
Justin 03:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin and definition of "Wasatch" 

message: The head section (the section before the table of contents)seems to be a bit bulky. I think perhaps that some of the information from this section should be placed within the main section of the article, as the head seems to contain more information than the main section. I also think that the information in this article as a whole could be bulked up. - Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 04:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this article needs some significant cleanup and reorganization. bob rulz 04:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulky Head Section 

message: I've gone ahead and done some cleanup.  In addition to a bunch of other stuff, I got rid of the section that was just quoting population figures, since I couldn't tell what the source was for those figures (assuming census but I don't have time to verify them myself) and the numbers were given in a jumbled mess.  Here's what I deleted, in case someone wants to verify these numbers, format them nicely, and re-insert them. alanyst /talk/ 08:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is excellent! Thank you very much for your dedicated edit. - Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 18:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup