Talk:Salt Lake City

Odd conversation

Going to make the page a little more in depth. Change a few things for instance salt lake is not in the Rocky mountians. SLC is actually in the wasatch mountians and la sal mountians. and in the southwest region of the US.

i believe the Wasatch Mountains are part of the rockies --(WT-en) SLCpunk 01:51, 8 Nov 2004 (EST)

Did some fact checking. You are correct the Wasatch an La Sal ranges are part of the rocky mountains. I was mistaken in thinking that they were independant mountain ranges. (WT-en) Biodrin 00:48, 18 Nov 2004 (EST)

Salt Lake City is nowhere near the La Sal Mountains. 67.166.64.98 23:23, 1 Jan 2005 (EST)

The Salt Lake City valley is bordered to the west by the Oquirrh Mountains (pronouced "Oak-er" like smoker)

County article?

Perhaps it would make more sense to create a region article for Salt Lake, rather than put an exhaustive list of nearby cities on the Salt Lake City page. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 14:19, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Understand Section

The understand section is starting to getting some of the same kind of anti/pro Mormon edits common to the wikipedia pages. It may be an important topic for Wikipedia to cover, but I can't see that detailed, (and disputed), accounts of Mormon history in 1840’s Illinois is useful to a Salt Lake City visitor. I've changed it to a more general and concise tone. Honestly, the whole Understand section seems a little long, and, in some places, overly focused on Utah rather than Salt Lake City specifically. I'm tempted to rewrite most of the city history to make it shorter and more applicable to a traveller, but I'd thought I'd see if anyone had any thoughts first. -- (WT-en) Merbert 11:38, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

I just thought I would mention that I am travelling to SLC next week, and knew next to nothing about the city. I found reading the understand section interesting. I agree it is a bit long, but it was all stuff, that as a traveller, I thought was relevant to my trip. --(WT-en) Inas 21:45, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

suggestion

Beautiful work on the "buy 'section. But I think someone from SLC or a fromer resident needs to umm....fill uop the work section. I could look at the economy/working conditions if you like. But it SHOULD NOT be left all up to me. What do you thik? (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 13:24, 23 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast

I noticed a weird change to the work section." Gay and Lesbian Employment.' Utah is a "right to work" state where it is legal to fire an employee for any reason, including living a homosexual lifestyle. " It took out the "any reason, including" removing it radically changes the statement. I would change it back but I am new to the wikivoyage. Also this is a charged subject at the moment because a state just failed to make it though the state senate that would make it illegal to fire someone because of the sexuality. What does everyone think?

¡i don't know!

I don't know-b ut doesn't the introduction sem like it should be in the understand section. It it sn't then its a wodnerful intro, definitely! keep Smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 13:06, 4 November 2008 (EST).

Unsafe for gays?

In the "Stay Safe" section, it almost makes it seem like you will be jumped for being homosexual. Whoever wrote this either had really bad experiences or is basing it off of sensationalist word of mouth reports without ever having experienced it. I toned down the language some but I feel like it should probably be removed completely. Not sure if anyone is paying attention, but if they are, do you agree? (WT-en) Bob rulz 08:23, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

Agreed, it seems a bit harsh. In general, I'd say SLC is fairly gay-friendly, and even those who dissaprove aren't likely to engage in violence. FBI hate crime stats shows zero sexual orientation hate crimes in '06 and '07 in Salt Lake City itself, and about 5 per year in the greater metro area. Doesn't seem to warrant a "stay safe" mention to me. (WT-en) Merbert 17:10, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

justification

I just took out most LDS discussion since it has no real application to the traveler, since it now has little effect on city life, unlike Provo, and most of it was extremely contreversial. Really, the article is better off that way. —The preceding comment was added by 68.50.233.28 (talk • contribs)

Uh... no. The Mormon church is an important part of Salt Lake City's identity, and many people come to Salt Lake City specifically because of the Mormon church. I don't know how mentioning the fact that Mormons settled the city is in any way controversial. If we got into stuff like their position on gay marriage, then yeah, I would agree that that wouldn't have much value for your average traveler. But I'm not sure what you're seeing in the history section that you find so controversial. PerryPlanet (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that the last paragraph is the only one contreversial, really. I do recognize that mistake. The airport there has a bus to LDS headquarters. And personally, I can't see that information being of note. So I was arrogant, and overdid it. Oops. —The preceding comment was added by 68.50.233.28 (talk • contribs)

Subsections under 'Eat'

I created subsections under 'Eat' breaking down options for different things a traveler might want (ethnic restaurants, gluten-free places, etc.). Now there is a thing at the top of the Eat section saying the section doesn't comply with WikiVoyage standards because the list is divided by something other than price and it "must" be subdivided by price. But link [Wikivoyage:Listings] says, in discussing long lists, "Other alternatives are subsections grouped by location (for instance, a long list of individual tiny Adirondack villages) or grouped by style of cuisine or accommodation (placing tent camping in a different subsection from grand old hotels, for example)" (emphasis added). And link [Wikivoyage:Avoid long lists] says "Restaurant, drink and accommodation listings should be broken down by price range, subtype or location." I interpret that to mean that other schemes of subtype, aside from price range, are equally valid. So I don't think a reworking of the section, to force it to be subdivided by price, is appropriate. Will Patrol Tonight (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I think what this means is that the listings should be divided first into Budget, Mid-range, and Splurge groups (e.g., ^===Budget===), as we do with all other Wikivoyage articles. If there are a lot of listings in a section, then divide them into subgroups under other headings, like location or style of cuisine, e.g., ^{====Gluten-free====}. The style guide should be clearer on this point. Ground Zero (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. Really my hangup is with the flag saying that the list "must" be subdivided by price. If it said to "consider subdividing by price" or that it "might be clearer if subdivided by price," I would understand that. Subdividing by price is the most common alternative in use, surely, but that doesn't make it the only valid alternative that contributors can use. Will Patrol Tonight (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and broke the long list into subsections by price range. I am not going to integrate the other lists into the price-range list as subsections (e.g., Budget/gluten_free and Budget/halal, Mid-Range/gluten_free and Mid-Range/halal, Splurge/gluten_free and Splurge/halal) because those sublists are intended to be useful to particular traveler audiences (like, people who are GF, or who adhere to halal) and for those audiences, I think completely separated lists are a better service. Will Patrol Tonight (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

there are many matters to be considered here, not least the guide's uniformity and ease of use, and ttcf always comes first. Thinking as a traveller, whenever I consult "AnyCity#Eat" I expect the listings subdivided by price, like every other Wikivoyage article, and I find it odd and unhelpful to see them sorted by cuisine. I hope I'm not alone on this opinion here. Ibaman (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Totally agreed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)