Talk:Salt Lake City/Archive 2

message: 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!
:--JON, Conqueror of Men - (Talk to Me, Baby!) 04:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: 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  for a list of books at the Library of Congress. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:13, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: 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. --Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!) 04:43, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: History and reference sections 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Major

message: 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)
replies: text: Ok, but how about Media in Salt Lake City or Media of Salt Lake City? --[jon] [talk] 22:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah. Consistancy, right. That's good. Cool Hand Luke 22:52, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  lots of photos 

message: What part of the article needs fixing?  Let's get this thing featured. lol :-) Apollomelos 21:03, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: What Do We Need To Work On?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Proposed Article Layout

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Also note Sarajevo a featured article modified layout. Apollomelos 22:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Style vs. substance