Talk:Carson City, Nevada

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nevada, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NevadaWikipedia:WikiProject NevadaTemplate:WikiProject NevadaNevada articles

United States: Old West Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject American Old West (assessed as High-importance).

Cities: Regional capitals

	Cities portal 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
	This article is supported by the project's regional capital taskforce.

Border?

According to Google Maps, Cheyenne does not, in fact, border Colorado.128.187.112.7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Consolidated Municipality of Carson City

This may be useful information later on in the article, but you never hear it addressed as the “Consolidated Municipality of Carson City”. It should be labeled as what it is referred to as, just Carson City, with the Consolidated Municipality of Carson City being touched on later in the article. Other thoughts on this? Blackbird5555 (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree that that this article needs work. It's been on my "get around to it" list for some time. I added the "Consolidated Municipality" sentences for 2 reasons. 1-Through the years several people have put "Carson City" in the info box as the official name, which is not correct. 2- The words "Consolidated Municipality" do at least need to appear somewhere in the lead as that is the official title of the city, and again, several people were removing that. I agree that if a good wording can be found, these problems would likely go away. I've got an idea, I'll take a stab at it. Dave (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our established style is that the full and formal name of the topic should be in bold in the first sentence of the article. For related examples, see San Francisco which is the City and County of San Francisco and Rhode Island which is State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. This applies to biographies as well, where we give the full legal name in bold, even if much less known than the common name. There are many similar examples. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ormsby county

Does anybody know of a list or map of Ormsby county cities and towns (pre-consolidation)? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen a formal map or list. This map, while obviously done post the 1969 consolidation, does show at least 4 other named cities inside Carson City limits, Lakeview, Stewart, Empire and New Empire. That's a little confusing as there was and is a city named Empire on the Washoe/Pershing county line. Dave (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who named Carson City?

There is a statement in the middle of paragraph 3 of the History section that is referenced currently to source[6], a website called Visit Carson City, referring to the naming of the city. The website identifies Franklin Proctor as the person who named Carson City, whereas the current text of the article says it was Abraham Curry. Is it reasonable to assume that the website is correct? I don't wish to edit an article whose subject I have no special knowledge of, without confidence in the source. Perhaps someone could check this out. The question of who named the city seems to be not insignificant. Alfrew (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found a book that phrases it this way: "The town, a little over a mile square, was platted in the early fall of 1858 on the south section of Eagle Valley Ranch and was named Carson City in honor of the frontier scout, Kit Carson. Wide streets were laid out and Curry reserved a plaza of four acres in the center of town for a public square. Streets and subdivisions were named for the four men, Curry, Musser, Proctor and Green, thus perpetuating their memory." ^[1] Anniepaints

References

^ Cerveri, Doris (1990). With Curry's Compliments: The Story of Abraham Curry. Elko, Nevada: Nostalgia Press. p. 13. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Carson City, Nevada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Carson City, Nevada. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 18:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carson City, Nevada. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 08:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Carson City, Nevada. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 13:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Official name in first sentence

There is a content dispute about whether—following the common name—the official name, "Consolidated Municipality of Carson City", should also be included in the first sentence of the lead.

MOS:LEAD states:

"Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative names (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold."
"As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead."

At Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#General guidelines, the guideline regarding the first sentence suggests that local official names should be listed if they are in a foreign language:

"Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted. Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name. Other relevant language names may appear in alphabetic order of their respective languages – i.e., (Estonian: Soome laht; Finnish: Suomenlahti; Russian: Финский залив, Finskiy zaliv; Swedish: Finska viken). Separate languages should be separated by semicolons."

There was also a discussion above.

My reason for challenging this is because MOS:LEAD also suggests "Be wary of cluttering the first sentence".

My interpretation of these MOS/guidelines is that the official name needs to be significantly different from the common name, and my opinion is that "Consolidated Municipality of Carson City" is not so different from "Carson City" this it merits cluttering the first sentence with information more appropriately placed elsewhere. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would note the official name in the lead… but not necessarily in the first sentence. Blueboar (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only the common name "Carson City" should be in bold. The consolidated stuff should be treated similar to the Kansas City, Kansas article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another policy to consider is MOS:ALTNAME which suggests it should be in the lead sentence, and was the policy justified to add it to the lead sentence in the above 2011 discussion. That seems to be how most, but not all, other cases are handled. This article is consistent with Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, San Francisco, Virginia, Washington D.C.. However, there are articles who handle it differently, for example Santa Fe, New Mexico. I am personally fine with handling this more like the Santa Fe example, but the official name does need to be in the lead somewhere. If consensus it to not have it in the first sentence, I would say a natural place to put it would be to change this sentence in the lead "The county was abolished that year and its territory merged with Carson City." to "The county was abolished that year and its territory merged with a newly formed Consolidated Municipality of Carson City". Dave (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for unjunking the lead sentence, while this dicussion is open someone took it upon themselves to move the "named for Kit Carson" to a seperate sentence, and I agree it reads better now. Was that change enough to resolve the concern about a junked up lead sentence? Dave (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere on the city website does it call itself "Consolidated Municipality of Carson City". GNIS calls it "Carson City", and the city municipal code calls it "Carson City". Magnolia677 (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I found with a quick search location 1, location 2 (about 2/3rds down the page), city website location 3. Location 3 is copied from the Wikipedia article, so a circular reference, still the city officials could have corrected it in their copy if wrong and didn't. Lastly is the city charter. This is curious, the relevant section is Sec. 1.020 and it uses the verbiage consolidated municipality called Carson City. So apparently the words consolidated municipality are very rarely used, and even the city charter says from this point forward to be called Carson City. That tells me certainly no need to be bolded in the lead sentence, being such a rare title. However, as consolidated municipality is in the charter, that needs to be mentioned *somewhere*. Dave (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And, wait, don't hella political entities have full formal names -- particulary with "City of" prepended? Picking a town off the top of my head, I see at the article Yorba Linda, California begins with

Yorba Linda is a suburban city...

and not

Yorba Linda, officially the City of Yorba Linda, is a suburban city...

even tho the website does say "City of Yorba Linda" at the top, and I'm sure that that's the legal name of the entity used on official documents. In fact "City of Yorba Linda" is not spelled out anywhere in the text, and so?

And I'll bet dollars to donuts that most of our other municipality articles are similar. So, it looks like we're going to have to change scores of thousands of articles, or else explain why we are carving out out a special exemption for Carson City. Sure, "Consolidated Municipality of Carson City" is a bit more fancied up than "City of Carson City", but how does that matter? Is the argument that "City of..." can be assumed by the reader but "Consolidated Municipality of..." needs to be spelled out? Why? What about other unusuak official names that may be out there... "Independent City of Grovers Corners" or whatever? God even knows what other countries do.

Actually let's see... Warsaw is officially named "Capital City of Warsaw" (actually its in Polish I assume) and we do have that in the first sentence... Paris is, I think, "Ville de Paris" (City of Paris) and we don't mention that... Milan is "Comune de Milano" (Municipality of Milan) and this is not mentioned in our article. I do see that official names are used at the top infoboxes where there is one, and this seem a fine solution. If there's an infobox that is.

So, I say no, don't clutter up the lede. It's explained in the body of the article how Carson City absorbed other areas and made the Consolidated Municipality part of its official name, in 1969, that's the way to do it. And this also follows Wikipedia:Official names, atho granted that is just about titles, but still. Herostratus (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I seems conensus is that having the official name bolded and in the lead sentence is cluttering up the lead. And I agree that having it in bold seems a bit much, given the only difference between the formal and colloquial title is the words "Consolidated Municipality". For me I guess the most convincing argument is the charter itself only mentions consolidated municipality in one place. I'll play with this and see how it sounds. Dave (talk) 04:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Cerveri, Doris (1990). With Curry's Compliments: The Story of Abraham Curry. Elko, Nevada: Nostalgia Press. p. 13. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

[1]