Talk:Salt Lake City

Former good articleSalt Lake City was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 28, 2004Peer reviewReviewed
December 26, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 24, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
July 12, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
December 14, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 7, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 29, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
February 19, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 18, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 16, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Infobox photo

I know this was brought up about a year ago, but was never changed, and I'm guessing that's because not enough editors liked the montages that had been created. I recently made this montage (<--), and was wondering if we think it's good enough to be used in the article's infobox? If not are there changes that would make it better? It would be nice if we could get an updated image of the skyline from the same location as the top photo (looks like it was taken at about the 600 North I-15 exit). I just don't live around SLC, or I would do it.--Mangoman88 (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are using photos that are copyright under the Creative Commons 3.0 license requiring attribution. However, not attribution is given to the original owner. Why not?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.210.64 (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution is given on the file description page.--Mangoman88 (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox - official name of city

"City of Salt Lake City" - that doesn't read well at all! Can't we change it to "City of Salt Lake"? The NYC wiki page doesn't say "City of New York City"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.142.11 (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, that's the official name. Take it up with the city council. Ntsimp (talk) 00:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'
~2026-11992-71 (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

error in population facts

There is apparently an error for Salt Lake City's listed urban, or metro population. "Metro" population includes "Urban" population, so it is impossible for Metro to be smaller than Urban.

current listed info:

Population (2011) • Urban 2,328,299 • Metro 1,145,905 (48th in U.S.)

Leon K. 72.187.229.156 (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. 1,145,905 population in Salt Lake City metropolitan area on July 1, 2011 estimate. I don't know what is urban doesn't have 2011 estimate. --Rossdegenstein (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Air pollution

Air quality is a local issue of substantial importance. We briefly mention the smog seen during winter inversions, but I feel like it's a widely enough reported topic to merit its own section or subsection. It would probably be wise not to restrict it to inversions either, as severe smog is also present during the summertime.

This year has probably been one with a higher amount of attention focused on the subject, given what I believe were record numbers of red air quality days, but this is an issue that has been written and talked about for a very long time now. We shouldn't have too much trouble gathering news articles and reports. Lethargy (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, The New York Times did a story about it in February. Establishing notability should be no problem. Couple that with stories from the local papers and you have enough for a subsection. If you want to write it, I'd be in favor. —Ute in DC (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demonym

Could someone please cite a reference for the demonym: "Salt Laker"? I was born and raised here in Salt Lake and have several generations of ancestors who have lived here, and I've NEVER heard this term. IMNSHO, I don't think an even moderately accepted demonym even exists for Salt Lake. Mrmcgibby (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shoshone Name

While the Shoshone name for Salt Lake City is interesting, I'm not convinced that it merits a place on the first line of the article. It is not a commonly used or recognized name, nor is it of particular historical relevance since the city was founded by English speakers. It's a neat bit of trivia, but I don't think it's anything more. There are no doubt names for the city in Norwegian, Tongan, Navajo, etc. as well. I worry that this inclusion on the first line might lead readers unfamiliar with the city to assume that the city's Shoshone name has far greater cultural significance than is actually the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.39.226.231 (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial Banking Center?

The article currently states: "It is the industrial banking center of the United States."

While this claim is sourced, I don't know enough about the subject to determine if the claim is accurate. I found this other article (https://www.cityweekly.net/utah/bank-on-it/Content?oid=2782335), which states Utah is fourth in commercial banking holdings, after CA, MA, and NY. Either way, does someone care to improve the article so the meaning here is more clear to the layman like me? DaRkAgE7[Talk] 05:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive Map

The interactive map of SLC should, in my estimation, the standard for all the major cities on Wikipedia, the state capitals in particular. But how on earth do I go about doing this...‽

kencf0618 (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New infobox photo?

Have there been any thoughts on a new infobox photo for Salt Lake? The current montage is excellent but a bit outdated -- for example, the skyline has expanded quite significantly since 2011. Curious if there has been any thoughts on updating this lately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.77.126 (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Climate

I teach in Salt Lake County. My high school students keep telling me that "Salt Lake City is in a desert" or "we live in a semi-arid climate." Now I see they are getting this information from the Wikipedia page, as Salt Lake City's page primarily identifies the city as a "cold semi-arid climate BSk."

Salt Lake City has a very similar climate to Van, Türkiye, which is listed as Dsa. When clicking on the Climate of Salt Lake City link, the page primarily identifies the city as Dsa. So I am going to edit the main Salt Lake City page to identify the city as Dsa. In fact, the information on the "Climate of Salt Lake City" page reverses the text as read on the "Salt Lake City" page. The climate page lists the city as Dsa, bordering on BSk, the main page says BSk, bordering on Dsa. I will reverse this error.

Also, Salt Lake City is entirely confined by Salt Lake County. The map of the Köppen Climate Classification of Utah shows Salt Lake County as Dsa, Csa, and Cfa. The article can't state that Salt Lake City is BSk if the map is showing otherwise. 66.85.17.230 (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics

Salt Lake is the preferred host for the 2034 Olympics not the 2030 Olympics https://www.cbssports.com/olympics/news/salt-lake-city-announced-as-preferred-host-for-2034-winter-olympics/ Yomangobro (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The situation looks more complicated than that. Different parts of the article tell of SLC bidding on the 2030 Olympics, or both the 2030 and 2034 Olympics. I don't know what "preferred" means in this context, or whether they've dropped their bid for 2030. Someone with the full picture should give attention to all the mentions of the Olympics in the article and update them and align them as needed. Largoplazo (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mention Lyman Uniform Street Numbering System

"The Lyman Uniform Street Numbering System was developed by Richard R. Lyman, a consulting civil engineer, and has been adopted by Salt Lake City and County, Utah," [2]. Jidanni (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University of Idaho?

Why is the University of Idaho on one of the images relating to SLC? This looks like a mistake. 103.4.194.206 (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SLC has four official flags which shall be included in the infobox.

As @Magnolia677 has said "one official flag should be fine", I'm sure not. Salt Lake City has four official flags, and the use of multiple official flags on infoboxes also happens in articles like Bavaria (in the exact same way as here) and Bolivia.

"In May 2025, Salt Lake City officially adopted four City flags" source. Guedes (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @Magnolia677 also points that "your edits mess up the infobox; please discuss", which is not an issue in the article Bavaria, as it's the 4th time I'm pointing this out and, if it does, I'm pretty sure there's two more seals that shall be added to the article so it won't "mess with the Infobox" no more. Guedes (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, the link says those are seals, not flags. Second, "The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose", per MOS:IBP. Finally, this article isn't about Bolivia or Bavaria or Belgium. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677 This article is about a city with four official flags. Thanks for pointing that out. What's wrong about that? Guedes (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677 keeps reverting my edits, says "please discuss" and don't even try to discuss. Guedes (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link to a reliable source that says this city has four official flags? Magnolia677 (talk) 10:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was pretty widespread media coverage of the change. huffpost, nbcnews, APNews, Deseret News. Here's just a few. I don't have a horse in the infobox question, but the new flags are certainly notable and well sourced. Darkage7[Talk] 18:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, this is an official flag and there is lots of precedent to add all flags in an infobox, and there is capability to add multiple flags specifically for this circumstance. Coleisforeditor (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Agree - Has precedent, no actual policy (I do not believe MOS:IBP applies here, as these are official flags, equal to the flag displayed. Yes, "The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose", but this does not mean it should be incomplete), well covered and notable. I don't understand why this is something that must be debated. Coleisforeditor (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This shouldn't be debated at all. I've just stopped editing because there's this clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT made by an user that can't be messaged through the talk page of his profile that kept reverting my edits. I actually would really like to know if this isn't WP:VANDAL: someone's actually gaslighting another into stop editing. They've just woke up in a different dimension where the SLC official website doesn't say they "officialy adopted four City flags" and kept reverting my edits because they have an issue with it. I'm not discussing, I just stopped trying to improve an article due to harassment, no idea how should I act in this exact situation. I really gave up. This is disgusting. Guedes (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this wouldn't be a case of WP:VANDAL, "Disruptive editing or stubbornness" is specifically listed as not vandalism. Coleisforeditor (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Coleisforeditor Fine, everything else should be considered. Guedes (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have referred this to WP:3O, in case you did not read my notice Coleisforeditor (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it. Your message said "You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to do so, to help this issue come to a resolution" [1], that's why I came back here in first place. Guedes (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC) Guedes (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3O Response: As there were more than two editors involved in this discussion, I am no declining this request. Please consider going to the dispute resolution noticeboard or submiting an RFC. NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 21:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it once again. If @Magnolia677 removes, it's gonna be reverted. Clearly everyone who got to the talk page agrees but them. Guedes (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FlightTime Phone, @Wiklekka check talk. City has four official flags. Guedes (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As i already said in another talk section other languages only include the blue-white flag which should be enough for this one too Wiklekka (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting other lang wikis are separate wikis with different policies and also tend to not be as active on English-language topics as English Wikipedia isn't as active on non-English language topics.
TL;DR: “It's this way on another wiki” isn't a valid argument Coleisforeditor (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

why trans flag?

why is the transgender flag listed? not appropriate for a main page. this is why I don’t use Wikipedia anymore. zero professional 80.42.128.172 (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the official city flag listed as the official city flag? Because it's the official city flag. It's not up to us to determine whether it's an appropriate flag (nor is this the forum for such a discussion). Darkage7[Talk] 19:53, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the flag was adopted is to bypass Utahs lgbt flag ban so it shouldn't be included in the page like in other languages (e.g. French) where only the blue-white flag is included Wiklekka (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably notable enough to merit an explanation in the body of the article explaining the background of why the flags were adopted, including that yes, it was to circumvent a state law. But that's an entirely different question. To the infobox, the city has four official flags. The motivation behind adopting the flags (and whether any individuals agree or disagree with the decision) are irrelevant to their inclusion. Darkage7[Talk] 18:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As i said other languages only include the "original" flag which should also be enough for this one Wiklekka (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As per my comment in the main discussion on this issue

Worth noting other lang wikis are separate wikis with different policies and also tend to not be as active on English-language topics as English Wikipedia isn't as active on non-English language topics.

TL;DR: “It's this way on another wiki” isn't a valid argument

Coleisforeditor (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has had extensive, ongoing discussion. As it stands right now, as they are official flags they are included in the "infobox" — this was not our decision but the City's. Coleisforeditor (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please reconsider the addition of the flags. These flags do nothing but clutter the infobox. These flags only exist due to petty political strife, which does not need to be highlighted in the article. The normal city flag is of more importance than the other flags. To treat the other flags as equal to the normal flag is disingenuous. NeedleInTheHeyStack (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your issue is with SLC city leaders, not Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 02:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is an existing discussion. Coleisforeditor (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on the inclusion of newly adopted flags in the infobox

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.
There was a weak preference for not including. The main arguments are that this would be so big as to become visual clutter; MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says infoboxes should be concise. Sources support the idea that all flags are official, but that one is the main flag and the others are only flown occasionally. A suggested compromise is to put the main flag in the infobox, plus an interal link to the body listing the remaining flags with an explanation. -- Beland (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On May 6, 2025, Salt Lake City Council adopted three new flags, alongside its previous flag, to circumvent Utah state law prohibiting non-federal, state or municipal flags being flown by government authorities, available to view in Flags of Salt Lake City. Should they also be included in the infobox? Coleisforeditor (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: WikiProject Utah, WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology.
@Guedes, Magnolia677, Darkage7, Wiklekka, NeedleInTheHeyStack, Binksternet, FlightTime Phone, MrOllie, Hikingboii, Miuse35, and Nick.mon: You have been involved in previous discussion, or have engaged in edit warring on this topic.
Editors should be aware that discussions about infoboxes, and edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes has been designated a contentious topic by the Arbitration Committee.
Coleisforeditor (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Guedes (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes per multiple media outlets reporting on the four flags, and the city's own webpage announcing four flags. Binksternet (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes per previous discussion and substantial amounts of reliable sources. A vote for 'no' is taking a political stance. Darkage7[Talk] 18:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You should not imply that people voting no on this are doing it on partisan grounds. Wikipedia has its own rules; stances on contemporary politics and Wikipedia design standards are generally two different things. By that logic a "yes" vote is also taking a "political stance". GKarastergios (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. That would be fine for this page. Hikingboii (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I do not think they should be in the article's infobox. As both the article and this RFC mention, the adoption of these particular flags (designed as proxies for the flags of political/idelogical movements separate and distinct from Salt Lake City) as "city flags" is a procedural loophole to allow the city to identify with the broader political/ideological movements. In this way, they are distinct in both purpose and history from the initial flag adopted to represent the city and its people, on its own merits.
    Creating a new heading to discuss this recent development, and the procedural reason for their adoption as "city flags" is more appropriate. They would still be recognized as technically-flags-of-the-city, but properly contextualized. It would also produce better organization and flow to the article more broadly. Jcgaylor (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. The reason for the adoption of the flags does not change the fact that they are official state city flags, and as such they belong in the infobox. I believe a new section with information on the adoption of the flags should be added to the article as well. edit: I made a slight mistake in my original comment Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I no longer feel strongly one way or the other. I can see why the opposing editors think the additional flags are unnecessary, but I also don't think their inclusion clunks up the infobox all that much (just a personal opinion, I understand why other editors only want the most essential stuff in the infobox). Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be okay with the infobox having a link under the primary flag to a section on the same page with all four flags, similar to what was done with Austria-Hungary. The original SLC flag and the three additional ones are technically co-equal to each other, so I can understand having images of them somewhere in the main page. However, having all four of them in the infobox as images goes against the purpose of an infobox.
Also, going back to Austria-Hungary, they at one point had four flags in the infobox (or sometimes two) due to debate on which flag(s) were "official" for the entire country. Technically none of them were in the modern sense, so they just displayed none of them and linked to a page with the four flags. So there is a bit of precedence for this. In this case, the main SLC flag can remain in the infobox since it was used prior and still used 99% of the time (and isn't a civil ensign). GKarastergios (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. Graham11 (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No – While technically all four flags are official flags, it's fairly evident that the three new ones are only included so they can be flown by the city on occasion. From the city website following the ordinance's approval: "The flags will be displayed at City Hall on Wednesday and for educational, cultural or historical observances" (emphasis mine), implying it won't be a regular occurrence. Since the infobox should focus on only the most important details, only the primary flag should be included. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No — The purpose of the infobox is to be a succinct summary of the article, and the purpose of the flag's inclusion in the infobox is to clearly showcase one of the city's primary symbols. As noted by other editors, these new flags have been purposefully adopted as part of a loophole, and they are only flown intermittently as celebrations of specific communities. As such, these new flags do not serve the same purpose as the main, longstanding one, and serve only to clutter the infobox and give these other flags WP:UNDUE weight. However, there should be a footnote noting that the city has three other official flags and a link to the 'Flags of' article that showcases them. Excluding the flags would not mean that Wikipedia is taking a political stance as another editor contended; my vote (and I'm sure the votes of other editors) would be unchanged regardless of whether the flags expressed progressive, conservative, or any other ideologically-aligned viewpoints. Loytra✨ 09:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - they clutter up the infobox, which is intended to give a high-level overview of the topic and not be an exhaustive list of everything about the city. These flags were created in response to a state law that severely limited what flags are allowed to be displayed on government property, and by designating them as official city flags, it allows the city to fly them and support their corresponding movements. It is pretty clear these flags are not routinely used aside from special occasions, where they are used to show support for various groups and not as a symbol of the city. The other flags can be included elsewhere in the article, with some discussion of why they were adopted as official flags. Highway 89 (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Per WP:NOTGALLERY, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and basic User Experience (UX) standards. Disregarding any politics, this is clunky design and bad UX; regardless of "official" status. I don't see any reason to include these other than on a pure technicality, which should not be worth sacrificing basic visual clarity over. People expect the infobox flag as being the primary flag of the city as a whole, not of ones designated for a visible minority or an event.
An infobox is supposed to be a quick summary of the most relevant surface-level facts, not an inclusion of every single minor and minute detail. We generally don't list every single C-Level and VP of a large corporation in an infobox, nor do we list every single book a prolific writer has put out in their page's infobox. Only the most important ones go in the infobox; the less important ones go in their own section or article. These flags can absolutely be listed on the page about the SLC flag or in the their own section, but not in the infobox for the entire city. At most their section can be linked to in the infobox under the main flag, but we don't need to show images of all 4 flags.
Including images of those 3 minor flags goes against the whole point of an infobox. That's not political, it's just basic design standards. GKarastergios (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Demographics/Religion Conflicts with Utah Page

the demographics of Utah page states that 50% of Utah residents are LDS members. this page states that 60% at the state level are LDS members. these pages should be in agreement Emvern (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Salt_Lake_City,_Utah