Talk:Cathay, North Dakota

United States: North Dakota Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	North Dakota portal This article is supported by WikiProject North Dakota (assessed as Low-importance).

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

City?[edit]

A city with 56 inhabitants? What makes it a city? Flapdragon 13:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've gotten this question many times in relation to incorporated places in North Dakota. The answer is simple: every incorporated place in the state of North Dakota is classified as a city. There are no villages, towns, or hamlets. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 19:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. That should probably be stated in the article as I think most people would be pretty surprised that such an insignificant place (no disrespect to its inhabitants) could be a city. So is just this North Dakota or may there be other states that apply that rule? Flapdragon 23:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added that info here and at North Dakota. Flapdragon 08:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it is a fact that every incorporated place in ND is a city, I feel that that information does not belong in an individual city article like this. It would seem rather redundant and pointless to go through the 300 or so articles about cities in ND and add this same information. It is a good idea to include this information in the main North Dakota article which I see you already did. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 09:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I take your point but I also think people will be particularly surprised by a "city" as small as this. Seeing, say, Fargo described as a city no-one would bat an eyelid, but there's a strong risk someone would just think this was a mistake or a joke, as I did for a moment, and in extreme cases like this I don't see it does any harm to add a little word of explanation even if it's not done 100% consistently -- come on, does that really cause a problem? Again, does anyone know if this practice is confined to North Dakota? I'm intrigued to know where it comes from and whether it's really just in one state. Flapdragon 00:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to wikifying the word "city" in each article about North Dakota incorporated places and linking that to an article that explains what is meant by a "city" in North Dakota terms. Perhaps we could make a new article titled something like North Dakota city. Or, we could link the word "city" to List of cities in North Dakota where the designation is already explained. What do you think? --Matth e wUND^(talk) 01:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cathay, North Dakota. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]