Talk:Carson City, Nevada

Border?

Carson City and interstate highways? Is it just me or does all the information about "carson city not having an interstate highway" not appropriate for such a prominent place in the article. I agree that this information is valid for an article on Carson City, but belongs farther down, perhaps in a transportation section or trivia. Any objections to moving it? davemeistermoab 2 May 2006

Carson city was named for Kit Carson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.206.68.3 (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

---

Hmmm... I don't know about the claim that Carson City is an independent city is correct. I've been under the impression that it is a consolidated city/county much like San Francisco. I'm trying to find a source (either city charter or NRS) that will back one or the other of these views. --- Sdp 04:57, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ok here is the Carson City Charter (http://www.leg.state.nv.us/CityCharters/CtyCCCC.html .) I'm going to edit according to what it says. --- Sdp 05:03, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

For future reference this is the paragraph that I'm using to defend the independent city -> consolidated city-county change that I am about to make.

Any powers expressly granted by this charter are in addition to any powers granted to a city or county by the general law of this state. All provisions of Nevada Revised Statutes which are applicable to counties or generally to cities (not including chapter 265, 266 or 267 of NRS) or to both and which are not in conflict with the provisions of this charter apply to Carson City.

---

Carson City is not just a consolidated city/county, it is clearly an independent city. This is what the U.S. Census Bureau defines it as, because its what the State of Nevada defines it as. See http://www.bartleby.com/69/90/C02790.html where it says "Ormsby co. was put out of existence, making Carson City an independent city, not part of any co. and statistically having county equivalent status." See also Google at [1] for the 340 pages where both "Carson City" and "independent city" are mentioned. radiojon 05:52, 2003 Aug 19 (UTC)

Ok there is clearly some confusion in the Wikipedia as to what is/isn't an independent city. From the independent city page

a consolidated city-county ... is both a city and a county under the laws of the State

Carson City clearly fits this definition from the above City Charter. The Census Bureau has a logical but different definition

An incorporated place that has combined its governmental functions with a county or sub-county entity but contains one or more other incorporated places that continue to function as local governments within the consolidated government.

This is confusing to me (and possibly others) because the Census Bureau defines Carson City as an independent city while some of the Carson City government documents that I've found refer to themselves as a consolidated city-county. And the Wikipedia definition from the independent city node seems to muddy the issue.

So I guess what I'm checking is that the Wikipedia stands by the definitions made by the US Census Bureau on this sort of issue. And if that is the case then the proper definition for what these entries are needs to be in the independent city and consolidated city-county. Correct? --- Sdp 07:13, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

I think the most practical definition of independent city is a city which is not defined (under state law and constitution) to be a part of any county. I suppose that consolidation would be a necessary step toward creating one though.

A true consolidated city/county would be like in Miami, which has for a very long time had a unified government with Dade County – to the point that the county name was changed by vote of the city/county council and referendum of the voters to Miami-Dade County. What makes this different is that other incorporated cities exist within the county, outside of Miami, including Homestead and Miami Beach. Based upon what Florida allows, these cities are autonomous and can pass their own laws and zoning, while responsibilities that Florida specifically delegates to the counties only (even within the cities) are still handled by the combined Miami city and Miami-Dade county government.

Wrong the county was simply renamed and some services combined. There are a lot of independent cities, and Miami city limits are the same

Another situation is at the other corner of the state, where Jacksonville incorporated all of Duval County in 1968, and the two governments were combined. In this case, there aren't even any other city governments to consider, but technically Florida still considers the city and county as separate entitites, even though they are jointly run.

Wrong again, there are several idependent cities in Duval and the state of Florida doesn't count them in Jacksonville's population

In Nevada, by whatever agreement, law, and/or state constitution, the state considers that Ormsby County no longer exists at all, therefore automatically making Carson City an independent city. Apparently this is a legal distinction or necessity in that state. Otherwise, it would be the same as Jacksonville, though I'm sure Florida has its own legalities, either not defining or not allowing: (1) a county to be abolished, or (2) the formation of an independent city.

In Virginia, every city is independent, even those which are the county seat of a county (oddly enough).

Yet again wrong. Every city over 5,000 has the option of being an independent city

The ultimate example of an independent city is Washington, D.C., which is the only city in the country that is not an any state at all — it's strictly the city and federal governments. This is probably the distinction that most states use, simply a city under the state with no county "middle-man" in between.

In the end, it's essentially a matter of semantics and what each state's law defines. Typically, counties are extensions of the state, with responsibilites such as voter registration and elections, public schools, public health, enforcement of state laws, and collection of sales taxes; while cities are more autonomous, and have powers of annexation and sometimes ETJ which counties do not.
-- radiojon 08:21, 2003 Aug 19 (UTC)

Ok this is making more sense to me now. Based on your explanation -- which is much clearer and helpful than the text of the independent city page -- I may make some edits to that page clarifying what is meant by independent city. It's also a good start for a consolidated city-county page. --- Cheers, Sdp 14:47, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Miami and Miami-Dade County, Florida are not consolidated. Miami-Dade County was renamed from Dade County to highlight the fact that the entire area, not just the City of Miami, is often identified as Miami ("to acknowledge the international name recognition of Miami"- from miamidade.gov link below). Miami-Dade County is made up of 30 municipalities and an extensive unincorporated area. The City of Miami is still a separate municipality within, and the seat of, Miami-Dade County. Miami-Dade County acts in many ways as a city government, calling its executive "mayor" and providing fire, police and other traditional "city" services to many areas of the county, including some municipalities and all unincorporated areas. However, the City of Miami still has its own mayor, police, fire, etc. (http://www.miamidade.gov/info/about/government.htm )(http://www.ci.miami.fl.us ) 21 Oct 2003.

more information

                                  i want more information
                                  i don't understand!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.69.14 (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 

Adding Pictures

This article has been tagged with Photos Requested ever since I started contributing to Wikipedia. I finally got off my duff and took some pictures. I hope this wasn't overkill. If anybody thinks it was feel free to delete or discuss removing images that are not adding value to the article. If nobody objects after a few days I will assume this is fine and de-tag the article for photos requested. Davemeistermoab 05:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio text removed

I've removed a lot of text which is from visitcarsoncity.com, which was added in 2006. --h2g2bob (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

history and Chinese slavery

1. I believe that the Chinese slavery aspect of the history section needs citation.

2. I think this section needs expansion, surely this is not the only notable history of Carson City

BEn (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You're exactly right. While there is probably truth to what this says, it's unreferenced and unencyclopedic in tone. It should either be re-written and expanded or should be cut out.Davemeistermoab (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is the deleted paragraph:

In the early 1800s, during the Californian gold rush, American businessmen went to China with the promise to the Chinese that, with a small passage fee on board the American ships, the Chinese could go to California to participate in the gold rush for themselves. However, instead of bringing the Chinese to San Francisco, they brought these gold-seeking Chinese to Carson City to work as slaves, building the railroad. They were not able to leave Carson city because Carson City was relatively far away from the Californian coast.

Davemeistermoab (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations about the history of Chinese slavery and oppression can be found in the archives of the Nevada Appeal. Unfortunately there are no digital copies of the archives one would need, as they are about a hundred years old. I recall reading excerpts in the Pages from the Past section. Seeing as this was a rather large part of the city's history, I'd like to find a way to include this information. Does anyone have any ideas about how to cite these issues? Would a hosted typecopy count or would one need to actually scan the volumes? Tashabot (talk) 03:54, April 30 2008 (UTC)

Geography section?

There used the be a section in here about the Geography of Carson City. Why was it deleted? There was some information in there that I don't see elsewhere in the article now.

Correction

An anon had posted the following into the article. I'm moving it to the talk page as this content doesn't belong within the article itself. I believe the confusion is the difference between the city of Carson City, and the Consolidated Municipality of Carson City ... but I don't live in that area, so am only guessing based on what's in the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Carson City does NOT border California. It is close, but no part of the city limits comes into contact with the border. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.13.203 (talk) 21:08, December 23, 2008

For the record, it does border California, but not on land. Map showing Carson City bordering California. As further proof, this is Nevada Department of Transportation's supplement to the federal sign guides, with signs unique to Nevada's Situation. Under guide signs is one specific on how to sign entry into Carson City along the shores of Lake Tahoe (read along Nevada State Route 28, where these custom signs are in use.) (Did I just out myself as a roadgeek with that last post? =-) )

There is a bigger issue, even though its true this is a trivial detail, that IMO does not merit mention in the lead and should be moved down to a geography section or similar. Dave (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Grammar in article

Can someone review the grammar and if it is acceptable, mark that as yes in the assessment? Vegaswikian (talk) 08:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Gallery

Editor Yellow Evan has removed the small gallery (4 photos) twice now, commenting "Wikipedia is not a gallery". Galleries do, in fact, have a place here, and this one (imo) adds to the article.

I've restored it; please discuss here rather than reverting again. --Pete Tillman 19:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me preface this with a disclaimer, the 4 pics that were in the gallery were taken by me, so I should partially recuse myself from this discussion. However, I originally had the four pictures placed in-line, scattered throughout the article. IIRC, someone combined the images into a gallery to make room for the infobox, climate box, etc. My preference would be to keep at least some of the images, placing them in-line. For the record, the relevant policy is WP:IG, which states that galleries are generally discouraged, but appropriate in some situations. Dave (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the image should be in one section. Besides, this article already has a lot of images. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

I don't understand your comment. I think you omitted a word or two. Could you clarify? Dave (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

• Given the current article format, the gallery seems the best solution. I'd suggest pruning the police memorial photo (and making the remaining gallery thumbs a bit bigger). That would leave 5 photos (plus one historical illo), which seems about right for an article of this length. Cheers, Pete Tillman 20:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

True, but Wikipedia is not a Gallery, it an encyclopedia. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

I support what Pete has done. While ideally the article would be expanded enough to support more in-line photos (and there is much more that can be said about Carson City), until that happens this is a descent compromise. Galleries are discouraged, but I see this as an interim solution.Dave (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Vulgar Indians

This is about https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Carson_City,_Nevada&curid=7441&diff=448849459&oldid=448804421 I'm curious why the word "only" was considered to be vulgar? I'm guessing that the editor was thinking in terms of "after all, they were only Indians." But "only" doesn't always carry that connotation. For example, the phrase "only one brave enough," which uses "only" in a positive context, got me over 500,000 Google hits. In context in the article, it seems to me to be a generic descriptor that identifies that there were no other people there at the time. If that is correct, it is important information and I think it should be restored. Alden Loveshade (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It can be re-phrased as "Prior to the Fremont expedition, Washoe Indians were the sole inhabitants of the valley and surrounding areas." - 85.210.44.129 (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)