![]() | United States: South Carolina Template‑class | |||||||||
|
Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states/state templates lists and displays all 50 U.S. state (and additional other) templates. It potentially can be used for ideas and standardization. // MrD9 07:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding standardization of state templates (primarily regarding layout and styling) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. states/state templates. An effort was made earlier this year to standardize Canadian province templates (which mostly succeeded). Lovelac7 and I have already begun standardizing all state templates. If you have any concerns, they should be directed toward the discussion page for state template standardization. Thanks!— Webdinger BLAH | SZ 22:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, there are two different Broad Rivers in South Carolina. For now I changed the link to the disambig page, which lists both rivers, but I'm fairly certain it shouldn't be left that way permanently. Can anyone come up with a way to fit both into the template without confusion? Amphy 04:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The current listing of cities, towns, and CDPs doesn't seem to make much sense. Is it even really necessary to have CDPs when towns of sizable reputations are left off?
Let's have a more intelligent listing please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.211.168 ( talk) 19:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
(unindent)Getting back to this, the big revision Nyttend made still stands. I think that a another redesign is in order. None of the city/town/cdp headings is close to complete, each has a fraction of the settlements that belong in it. I'm thinking:
But we should make both "larger cities" and "smaller cities" complete with every city in Category:Cities in South Carolina. That's 60+ cities for the template. Darkspots ( talk) 12:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The template needs to be reorganized. Unlike most states, South Carolina Law does not recognize the difference between a "village" or "town" or "city". SC Law only provides for an area to be incorporated as a municipality, that municipality then chooses how it identifies itself, therefore the current template gives viewers a misconception. Also, as previously suggested, there are probably many municipalities (of all sizes) and many CDPs (with large populations) left off of the template. The template needs to be redone to include all municipalities and only the largest CDPs.
I would suggest the template being designed out as following:
Many of the municipalities are currently in a misleading category. For example, Isle of Palms, South Carolina has a population of 4,133 and is in the smaller cities category, yet Mount Pleasant has a population of 67,843 and is in the towns category. Even though Mount Pleasant identifies itself as a town it appears to be a small community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tstarl0425 ( talk • contribs) 02:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | United States: South Carolina Template‑class | |||||||||
|
Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states/state templates lists and displays all 50 U.S. state (and additional other) templates. It potentially can be used for ideas and standardization. // MrD9 07:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding standardization of state templates (primarily regarding layout and styling) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. states/state templates. An effort was made earlier this year to standardize Canadian province templates (which mostly succeeded). Lovelac7 and I have already begun standardizing all state templates. If you have any concerns, they should be directed toward the discussion page for state template standardization. Thanks!— Webdinger BLAH | SZ 22:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, there are two different Broad Rivers in South Carolina. For now I changed the link to the disambig page, which lists both rivers, but I'm fairly certain it shouldn't be left that way permanently. Can anyone come up with a way to fit both into the template without confusion? Amphy 04:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The current listing of cities, towns, and CDPs doesn't seem to make much sense. Is it even really necessary to have CDPs when towns of sizable reputations are left off?
Let's have a more intelligent listing please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.211.168 ( talk) 19:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
(unindent)Getting back to this, the big revision Nyttend made still stands. I think that a another redesign is in order. None of the city/town/cdp headings is close to complete, each has a fraction of the settlements that belong in it. I'm thinking:
But we should make both "larger cities" and "smaller cities" complete with every city in Category:Cities in South Carolina. That's 60+ cities for the template. Darkspots ( talk) 12:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The template needs to be reorganized. Unlike most states, South Carolina Law does not recognize the difference between a "village" or "town" or "city". SC Law only provides for an area to be incorporated as a municipality, that municipality then chooses how it identifies itself, therefore the current template gives viewers a misconception. Also, as previously suggested, there are probably many municipalities (of all sizes) and many CDPs (with large populations) left off of the template. The template needs to be redone to include all municipalities and only the largest CDPs.
I would suggest the template being designed out as following:
Many of the municipalities are currently in a misleading category. For example, Isle of Palms, South Carolina has a population of 4,133 and is in the smaller cities category, yet Mount Pleasant has a population of 67,843 and is in the towns category. Even though Mount Pleasant identifies itself as a town it appears to be a small community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tstarl0425 ( talk • contribs) 02:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)