Talk:Unincorporated area

message: The reason I removed the word "territory" is that the term is ambigious. A uppercase "T" territory is one that has been Incorporated (e.g. Palmyra Atoll). A lowercase "t" territory is one that is unincorporated. (e.g. everything else). I hope this helps. - Hoshie 07:41, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "insular area" vs. "territory"

message: :The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.  
Doctor Whom added the template on unincorporated community to merge with this article. Actually, I think the merge should actually go the other way. Without modification, the term "unincorporated" can refer to things other than land, territory, or communities. older≠wiser 19:29, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
: I agree and have tagged the articles acordingly. However, no discussion has been forthcoming yet and hence after waiting for a week for comments, I'd merge the articles as per the tag on them. --Gurubrahma 12:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  merging articles (2005) [[unincorporated community]] into [[unincorporated area]] 

message: I believe the article means in USA law, not "in law" in general.  However, not being a Columbian, I can't amend the article as I don't know whether to put US law, or whether this is something federal or state or whatever....someone Stateside please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.20.85 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if it is a U.S. specific term.  I think it depends on whether the other common law jurisdictions have it as well.  If they don't have the word, then maybe we should qualify the definition by saying in American law.  Does anyone from the British Commonwealth know anything about whether they have unincorporated areas there? --Coolcaesar 15:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (A British reader responds: There's no such thing as an "unincorporated area" in the UK. I've never heard the term used outside the US.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.196.56 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A Google search turned up plenty of uses in Canada and Australia.  I haven't tried it with other countries.  Would someone familiar with the organization of local government in Canada or Australia care to enlighten us?  Thanks.  Doctor Whom 20:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The term is most definitely used in Canada, and some very large communities have chosen to remain unincorporated for tax saving purposes.  Other have chosen to lose their incorporated status and merge with surrounding rural communities.  Since the provinces have constitutional jurisdiction over municipalities, the rules regarding them are different for each province.  I know in my own province, Alberta, some of the largest communities are unincorporated.  See Sherwood Park, Alberta and Fort McMurray, Alberta, and see the good information in Hamlet (place). Kevlar67 12:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From reading the interwikied article in German, :de:Gemeindefreies Gebiet (roughly municipality-free area), it is clear that such areas exist in some German states as well, and to some extent in Switzerland also. And those countries are not common law ones, are they? This article clearly needs to be more international in scope. 217.208.26.177 22:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ironically enough, the apparent intent of the anon editor who raised the issue was to remove US-centric bias, not to add it. I've had to revert edits in other articles that have backfired in the same way.  Doctor Whom 01:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, I should point out that using Columbian for American is very archaic and would not be understood by most people.  I know what you're saying because I have a bachelor's degree in history, but most people don't know much about history!  --Coolcaesar 15:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  In law ? 

message: I dont really belive this article is still a stub, it seems pretty informative, maybe some legal info is needed?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doodle77 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub? 

message: I just caught on to this.  Where are unincorporated communities signed with the term "unincorporated"?  In California and Virginia, unincorporated communities, if they are signed at all, are usually signed in the name of the county.  For example, Alta Arden is signed as "Alta Arden, a Sacramento County neighborhood," and in the D.C. area, Rosslyn is signed as "Rosslyn, a neighborhood of Arlington County."  If Freekie doesn't give a concrete example soon, I'm deleting his/her edit.--Coolcaesar 09:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This edit is rather too vague to remain as is. I don't doubt that there may be cases like this, but at the very least there needs to be at least one specific example. older ≠ wiser 12:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wisconsin. They used to be settlements (for lack of a better term) with names, which got swallowed up by townships (six-mile-square). There are signs showing where the old towns were, listing them as "unincorporated." But what I'm talking about fits under the definition of the first bullet point (a neighborhood that is within a town), so it's no big deal - I just gave a more specific description. I'll see if I can get a picture for you, but either way, feel free to edit the article in any way you see fit. -Freekee 03:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, see, it's kind of confusing, since towns in Wisconsin, are like civil townships in Minnesota and Michigan and are not themselves "incorporated" municipalities. These towns and townships are county subdivisions established under provisions of general law. Their powers are limited by the provisions of the statutes. On the other hand, with incorporated municipalities, like cities or villages, the people in an area incorporate as a municipal corporation. Such municipal corporations have considerably more powers than general law entities. The confusion arises because in other states, towns are just another type of municipality. And even in MI, MN and WI, some townships have powers which approach that of a municipality, so it can be difficult to make meaningful distinctions. BTW, it's not quite accurate to say the settlements got swallowed up by townships -- townships in these states were generally the first form of organized local government in many of these areas. It'd be probably more accurate to say in most such cases that the communities were never incorporated. In the case of a place within a Wisconsin town, I think this would more closely fall under the second bullet point. older ≠ wiser 12:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  My understanding of townships is that they were surveyed first and then the settlements within them came later.  --Coolcaesar 17:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what you are saying is that in Wisconsin (and some other states), towns are technically unincorporated. Even though they have governing bodies. I don't think the article and/or bullet points explain this. Sounds like you should do a rewrite. :-) As far as my edit, I don't think either bullet point quite explains what "unincorporated" means in this context. Perhaps something like a neighborhood or other community existing outside of an incorporated municipal government, within a larger unincorported area, or away from a larger urbanized area. My point is that these unincorporated "towns" are really just neighborhoods, but they have official signs, so someone is going to come here to see what that may mean. -Freekee 16:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Unincorporated Kansas towns often have a green city limit sign stating the town name and "Unincorporated" underneath, where incorporated Kansas towns list "Population: X,XXX" underneath the city name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmcdonald (talk • contribs) 17:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange edits by Freekie in July 

message: :The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.  
I've suggested merging this article with census-designated place--both articles cover the same territory with the one caveat that CDP talks about a census bureau designation.  That could be easily covered in this article.--Velvet elvis81 18:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no, not at all the same. A CDP has a very specific, albeit somewhat confusing, meaning. Not all CDPs are unincorporated. older ≠ wiser 01:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong agree with Bkonrad, a CDP is distinctly different from an unincorporated area. --MMX 09:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur.  What older ≠ wiser is referring to is the six New England states that use incorporated townships and have allowed the county governments to wither away to vestiges, unlike most other states which divide local administrative power between cities and counties.  Some New England townships are so large as to have several geographically distinct communities within them, which all require their own CDPs.  --Coolcaesar 22:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I would not want to see a merging of these articles. Some CDPs can be a subset of unincorporated areas, but not all of them are. While CDPs should be mentioned in the Unincorporated area article, there is sufficient difference between the two that Census-designated place should continue to have its own article as well. Whyaduck 11:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I second those that say these should not be merged.  Census-designated places are statistical divisons used by the census.  Unincorporated communities can be any loose grouping of areas by one person or a community.  They are statistical divisions. These are not one and the same. --Criticalthinker 04:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: * Very Strongly disagree!!!  CDPs are constructs of the USA National Government Census Bureau just as the Post Office ZIP code service area are created by the US Postal Service (USPS).  While the USPS asks for a city in address your mail that may not be the municipality that the addressee lives in.   The USA has a federal system of government so ZIP Code areas and CDPs are not exactly municipalities or recognized place names.  No one is suggesting to merge ZIP Codes with Unincorporated Areas.  While the state government does recognized some place names that Unincorporated Areas are as some may be recognized through platting (survey) records.  The Village of Swartz Creek (now city; village was a size tag for incorporated mini.{ie. cities} in MI) was platted as the Village of Swartz Creek in 1877 but was not incorporated until 1959 (with two other place names {Crapo Farms & Otterburn} and other Platted subdivisions. In fact, Swartz Creek was formerly know as Miller Settlement by the residents, Swartz Creek was the Post Office name and Hamiltion as the train station name for one year!  Spshu 22:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: * Very Strongly disagree I can not be more against merging the two articles. I don't believe that there is any useful purpose in doing so. Furthermore there are at least two reasons why it should not be done. 1) This is tantamount to bureaucracy, unnecessary and unwarranted. 2) Merely linking CDP and Unincorporated Area is not at all helpful. The terms are not synonymous with one another. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.174.79.202 (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  merging articles (2007) [[census-designated place]] into [[unincorporated area]] 

message: :The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.  
Article (Unincorporated community (New Jersey)) merged: See old talk-page here  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger (2008)

message: The Czech Republic has also no unincorporated areas. Every place belongs to a municipality, except for military areas which have their own "governments". I would add the Czech Republic to the list but I am not sure if it should be there because of the existence of the military areas.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.151.83.161 (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Czech Republic 

message: This article discusses, but fails to make a very clear distinction, between unincorporated areas and unincorporated communities. The first is an area, usually very sparsely populated, without any municipal or local level of government. The latter is a community or settlement that is not incorporated as a self-governing municipality. I think the statements in the section Countries without unincorporated places may a little misleading. While it may be true that there are no unincorporated areas (the first sense), there are almost certainly settlements in these countries that are not incorporated municipalities (the second sense). 
I'm not sure what to do about this though, as there is already a great lack of any sort of references for this article. older ≠ wiser 01:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced that these two concepts are distinct. In my personal experience, there is a gradational range in unincorporated places -- from well-defined communities that happen not to be legally incorporated as municipalities (example: Blountville, Tennessee) through a diverse variety of situations to sparsely populated (or unpopulated) areas lacking any local government. The article describes the diverse meanings of "unincorporated" reasonably well, although some references sure would be nice to have. ((Also, the fact that a settlements are not incorporated places does not necessarily make those settlements "unincorporated places," as they may be components of larger areas that have municipal governments.) --Orlady (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (after ec) There is very little similarity between an genuinely unincorporated area, such as the unorganized territories in Minnesota, or Maine, or some other states, where there is for all practical purposes no local level of government, and unincorporated settlements where there is a distinct cluster of population, but which is not separately incorporated. I think the statement about there not being any unincorporated areas in some countries illustrates the confusion between these concepts. There are almost certainly unincorporated settlements in these countries, but such assertions are made because of the lack of clarity in distinguishing these concepts in this article. That there can be unincorporated settlements within incorporated areas is exactly the sort of confusion I'm referring to. older ≠ wiser 02:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article is really about two distinct topics 

message: "a neighborhood or other community existing within one or across multiple existing incorporated areas (i.e. cities or towns). In this sense, a community is part of a municipal government, but not separately incorporated from it. For example, Hyannis, Massachusetts is an unincorporated village within the town limits of the larger incorporated town of Barnstable." The point is valid but the example is not. Note that villages are not a valid political body in Massachusetts; the smallest possible municipality under law is the town. Note that the town of Barnstable provides all the services to "Hyannis". I think it is inapporpiate and misleading to call it an "unicorporated village" when it incorporation is impossible to begin with. With this logic, however, Manomet and Cedarville in Plymouth, MA; Bryantville in Pembroke, MA; and Weymouth Landing in Weymouth, MA could be considered "villages" to simply because there is no legal definition or capacity to become incorported. I nominate the example for deletion when someone can come up with a more appropiate example. Dexta32084 (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point about potentially misleading terminology is valid, although the general point being made with the example is still valid. While it is true that there is no incorporated "village" as implied by the term unincorporated village, the distinction would be the same if the terms were changed to unincorporated community or unincorporated hamlet, or other even more circumlocutory phrasing. If you'd prefer community or hamlet to village in that example, I'd have no objection, but I don't see that it would make much of a difference. older ≠ wiser 23:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, since Hyannis is as good as any other New England village.  We could have just as easily used Pinardville, New Hampshire or Riverton, Connecticut.  The concept of a distict, recognized center of population which is part of a larger incorporated municipality is well established, and Hyannis is clearly one of them.  --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor Hyannis example 

message: This article states that in Norway "…a handful of unincorporated cities exist within ordinary municipalities". What is this supposed to mean? In Norway, cities are municipalities. I know that people sometimes (even often) refer to the settlement that is the administrative centre of a municipality as "the city", but that is not formally correct. Such a definition would also make all cities unincorporated (except maybe Oslo), so the quoted text would still be wrong or misleading. I believe the situation is the same in Sweden. Svalbard might be unincorporated, though, but I am not quite sure about what exactly "incorporated" means. Ters (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the main problem is that there seems to be an underlying assumption that a municipality basically corresponds to a particular community (town, city, settlement of any kind). This is simply not the case in Norway, where a municipality is the local government unit responsible for a certain geographical area, which can contain any number of separate communities. As such, every square inch of Norway is assigned to a municipality, without exception. In fact, some municipalities in sparsely populated areas are even larger than counties in more densely populated areas of the country. Naming certain cities as unincorporated communities makes little sense, because (with the exception of the capital, Oslo) no Norwegian municipality is intended to govern a single specific city in the first place. Maitreya (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norway 

message: Compare the assertion in this piece to that of the wiki entry on Maine
"... Unincorporated regions are essentially non-existent in the six New England states and New Jersey due to the weak or nonexistent county government system.[citation needed] Nearly all of the land in New England (and all of the land in New Jersey) is part of an incorporated area of some type. ..."
"Unorganized Territory of Maine consists of over 400 townships (towns are incorporated, townships are unincorporated), plus many coastal islands that do not lie within any municipal bounds. The UT land area is slightly over one half the entire area of the State of Maine."
And, while on the subject of New England, the use of Hyannis as an example of an unincorporated area is patently inappropriate - as already cited by a couple of folks, but cavalierly disposed of by others - Hyannis is a neighborhood, once a village but no longer - as that form of government no longer exists. If we accept Hyannis on those terms as an unincorporated area, significant portions of every urbanized state in the US would fall into the category. Is there any groundswell here for designating Canarsie, BackoftheYards, Beacon Hill, or Watts as unincorporated areas? The logic is no different - hell, in Massachusetts, that would mean that the entire city of Newton would encompass 5 unincorporated areas, the former villages that comprise it.   
As for the last retort to an objection about Hyannis - the response cites Riverton, CT - which is a historic district - and Pinardville, NH - which is a CDP. Neither of those fit the accepted idea of an unincorporated area, either. Irish Melkite (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To address your second point of confusion, the term "unincorporated area" has two distinct meanings.  The first is "an area not part of any municipal corporation" and the second is "a recognized and named population center which is part of a larger municipal corporation" (i.e. not seperately incorporated).  In New York State, these areas are usually called "Hamlets".  In New England, the second term tends to get used more commonly, i.e. for places like Hyannis.  That brings us back to your first confusion regarding New England.  Excepting Maine, there are almost no "unincorporated areas" anywhere in New England.  There are a few oddball locations in New Hampshire and Vermont, accounting for something like 1% of the land area and significantly less that 1% of the population; other than that the entire area of the 5 Non-Maine New England states is entirely incorporated; everywhere is part of a municipality.  This is unlike the rest of the country, which is why the Census Bureau can't handle it; it does not recognizes New England towns as a valid form of incoporation, though in most of New England there is no functional difference between a town and a city excepting the form of municipal government, but not its function or responsibilities.  Which is why the second definition of "unincorporated place" tends to be used in New England; for example Weirs Beach, New Hampshire is often called an "unincorporated village" because it is a distinct population center; however it is part of the municipality of Laconia, New Hampshire.  Locals recognize Weirs Beach as a seperate place from Laconia; but it receives all its services from and is politically part of, the City of Laconia.  --Jayron32 05:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New England 

message: I did not catch what is the point to be not incorporated. A type of a tax evasion? Does not make any sense. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess that it would start with not having enough population to qualify to incorporate (depending on the location).  Another would be that those who live in the area may not be equipped to run their own local government for various reasons or otherwise may simply choose to not form one.  Another point--I don't know about other countries, but in the US "tax evasion" is illegal - the term I think you seek is "tax avoidance" which is much different.  Having lived in both incorporated and unincorporated areas and I personally find advantages and disadvantages to both.  For example, if I wanted to go pheasant hunting or deer hunting on my property in rural Kansas, all I needed was a hunting license.  If I tried to do that in Overland Park, Kansas I'd likely have problems with the police!--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that if you have an incorporated government, there is more local control, but more local micromanagement.  I'll clarify the article.--Coolcaesar (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  So what is the point of being not incorporated? 

message: I recently changed the lead to read "In law, an unincorporated area is a region of land, usually a city, town, village or hamlet that does not have its own municipal corporation. Such regions are generally administered by default as a part of larger administrative divisions, such as a township, borough, county, state, province, canton, parish, or country." 
This was challenged and reverted, and so I would like to explain my reasoning here so that we can reach some consensus as to the way forward. The problem may simply be in the difference in meaning from one country to another. I am in Nova Scotia, Canada, and the lead as it now stands makes no sense from my perspective. I live in a tiny community called Seafoam, which the Canadian Government defines as an unincorporated area. I can assure you (unfortunately) that we do have to pay taxes, in our case to the Municipality of Pictou County. The distinction, in case it is not clear, is that Seafoam itself is unincorporated and there is no municipality of Seafoam; our services are provided by, and taxed, by a municipality at the county level. The two statements I removed, "a region of land that is not a part of any municipality" and "An unincorporated community is usually not subject to or taxed by a municipal government" just do not apply. Derek Andrews (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement an unincorporated area is a region of land, usually a city, town, village is self-contradictory for many places as, with the exception of hamlet, these terms often describe incorporated municipalities. I agree that the statement about taxes is highly misleading, though I'm not sure how to fix the lede. Personally (per my comments above at #this article is really about two distinct topics), I think this article is pretty hopelessly confused. older ≠ wiser 01:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that the above noted statement is contradictory. The usage of city, town and village implies that such communities are incorporated. Also agreed that this article is hopelessly confused. Hwy43 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with Hwy43.  Although I think the underlying problem is that Canadian English is using a different definition of municipality, one which makes no sense---which is probably due to the atrocious quality of Canadian universities and law schools.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You only need to read Municipality to see that the term has many definitions world-wide, and even within the USA, and most are set by the highest law makers in the land, and no doubt take heed of local history, needs and circumstances. Derek Andrews (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

text: I'm not even sure that the terms town and village imply incorporation, at least in a vernacular sense. My nearest village is not incorporated, but I think everyone calls it a village. Whether we are legally allowed to do so, I do not know, but maybe in this jurisdiction there is no legal definition of the term anyway. Derek Andrews (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree that this is a tricky one, and with #this article is really about two distinct topics. The lack of references is alarming, given that we are dealing here with something that seems to be legally defined, so presumably the references do exist. Maybe the problem is that there are so many definitions - it seems like in Canada each province and territory defines municipalities, so it could be a big article. It doesn't help that this article is really about something that doesn't exist, or at least is a negative state of being. As for the lede, I think that can only be a very vague statement that outlines briefly the various uses of the term and how it is used differently in various jurisdictions. Derek Andrews (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to lead 

message: As someone else pointed out, Maine, which is geographically larger than the 5 other New England states combined, consists of substantial unincorporated territory, though this article seems to ignore this with its emphasis on the New England states consisting almost entirely of incorporated municipalities.  In addition to incorporated towns and unincorporated townships, Maine also has plantations, and it's not quite clear whether the said plantations would be considered unincorporated or incorporated.   98.221.128.109 (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Maine

message: Please clarify the difference. --109.53.222.210 (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Both articles are already very well written and the difference is really, really obvious.  Of course, if you don't know what is a U.S. federal territory or a municipal corporation, then that could be the problem.  And I don't have the time to explain. Go read a civics textbook or something. --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: While it is stretching to call the underreferenced disasters that are both of these articles "very well written", I think the articles do a reasonably good job of describing the differences. older ≠ wiser 14:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Unorganized territory]] and [[Unincorporated area]] 

message: This part under United States
"Some American states have no unincorporated land areas; these include Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island"
Though Tolna, PA says its an Unincorporated Community.   
I don't know anything about this subject, but I just noticed this. So I thought I'd mention it.
--TheeCakee (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This illustrates why the long-time back merge of unincorporated community with this article was a bad idea. A state that has no unincorporated areas can and, for any areas with significant populations, usually does have distinct communities that are not separately incorporated. older ≠ wiser 19:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pennsylvania does have Unincorporated areas according to a different article. 

message: I am proposing to get rid of the Pine Valley photo for two reasons:
1. It's redundant. We already have a photo of the Contra Costa Centre sign.
2. It wasn't taken properly. A seasoned photographer would have waited a few hours for the sun to rotate to his/her back, or simply hit the sign with a really bright flash. 
Any objections? --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we really need two photos? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Unincorporated area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110928145515/http://www.statistik-bw.de/Pressemitt/2010459.asp to http://www.statistik-bw.de/Pressemitt/2010459.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If anyone adds a "citation needed" tag to the lead paragraph as a result of User:Debresser's recent edit (which I just reverted again), I will (1) revert such a tag; (2) ask that editor to take it up with User:Debresser directly.  The entire point of having Cabazon listed there is to ward off that kind of idiotic tagging on an issue which is a matter of common sense (i.e., municipal disincorporation).  --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Having an example is in general not the best idea, and especially in a lead section. Moreover, an example does not provide an answer to a "Citation needed" tag, because a source and an example are not the same. Also, it is not clear to me what would need to be sourced in this sentence. Debresser (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

text: In short, if a tag is added, deal with it. Don't point fingers, or insist on an inferior version because of it. Debresser (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well, we'll do it your way and see what happens.  To paraphrase Colin Powell, you broke it, you own it.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have this page on my watchlist now. If I don't react within 24 hours, drop me a note with the issue, please. I might not have understood the issue with the edit. Debresser (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The issue of the lead paragraph 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Unincorporated area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150913233847/http://www.oca.sa.gov.au/ to http://www.oca.sa.gov.au/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110202050821/http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/HistoryofCountyGovernmentPartI.aspx to http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/HistoryofCountyGovernmentPartI.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is no such legal term in the United Kingdom as an 'unincorporated' area or community, as far as I know.
However, it may just be that I'm misunderstanding the definitions given here, but it sounds like what those terms describe is indeed a thing that exists in all four countries of the UK.
Using England as an example: it's divided (entirely) into London Boroughs, metropolitan boroughs, non-metropolitan counties, and unitary authorities (which are all administrative divisions, i.e. they all have governments); non-metropolitan counties are further (entirely) subdivided into (also administrative) non-metropolitan districts (a county that isn't divided into districts is by definition a unitary authority, not a non-metropolitan county). Most non-metropolitan districts, many unitary authorities, and some parts of metropolitan boroughs are divided into civil parishes, which also have governments; some parishes have the status of 'city', 'town' or 'village', while others simply use 'parish'. However, many areas, usually urban areas, are 'unparished' - that is, governed at the lowest level by the unitary authority or district that they're in, and not being part of or under the jurisdiction of any civil parish.
From the definition of an unincorporated area or community in the lede, it seems that unparished areas in England (and their equivalents in Scotland, Wales and I think Northern Ireland that also exist) are unincorporated areas or communities, but it goes on to claim that the UK doesn't have any. Am I wrong? Is the definition clear enough?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Dent (talk • contribs) 19:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The UK doesn't have any? 

message: :The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
::To not merge; distinct subjects warranting separate coverage. Klbrain (talk) 10:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposed merge is an illogical non sequitur. These are two entirely different subjects with no overlap. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

text: I agree with Coolcaesar, though this article desperately needs to be sourced. SportingFlyer T·C 22:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

text: I guess it's possible that some or many of these small towns are unincorporated, but there's no reason to think that it's an inherent part of their nature.Nickpheas (talk) 09:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Even they may be big town. I can read in the article:  "These towns tend to have a higher population than villages, and often act as a transit point for surrounding villages. These towns may be taluk headquarters or headquarters of a subdivision. " --Mezze stagioni (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

text: I agree with SportingFlyer, but that's a separate issue QoopyQoopy (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge (2019) of [[:Main road town]] into [[:Unincorporated area]]  

message: Hello,
I have written a separate article on unincorporated areas in the United States. (Link:Unincorporated area (United States)) It is currently a stub but when it gets to at least start (probably C) should I link it as a main article?
Regards, Giraffer (munch) 08:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States 

message: Do stub articles on unincorporated areas in the United States that don't list the population of the area or if it has any people have notability?  Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: I propose merging Unorganized area (which is about the unincorporated area in Canada) into Unincorporated area. I think the content in Unorganized area can easily be explained in the context of Unincorporated area. --Thesmp (talk) 10:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Proposal was initiated by a banned WP:SOCK, request for WP:SNOW close. 2001:8003:9008:1301:593E:42DA:A54E:3924 (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal (2022) [[Unorganized area]] into [[Unincorporated area]] 

message: The article says that France has no unincorporated areas except for Clipperton Island. In fact, I believe that also all of France's French Southern and Antarctic Lands are unincorporated. They are divided into districts for administrative purposes, but there are no local assemblies, all officials are appointed (which is unsurprising given that there is no population living there on a permanent basis). David.Monniaux (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  France 

message: The section on the US is super long and I feel like it could be its own article, and the US section on this article shortened.
Just my opinion. TheT.N.T.BOOM! (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  US could be separated?