Talk:Kansas

Wichita is the largest metro area in Kansas? Absolutley not. Wichita is not even a major city. It's metro population is UNDER 1 million people. In Kansas alone it only has around 600 thousand. Kansas City is a major city and metro area with population exceeding 2 million people. Even the Kansas suburbs of Kansas City, including Johnson County (with 500 thousand), Wyandotte (with 150K), and Leavenworth (50k) are larger than the entire Wichita MSA. I have changed the infobox accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.212.191 (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's all fine and dandy, except that the KC metro area isn't based in Kansas...If you are looking for the biggest one based in Kansas, it is the Wichita metro. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 14:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, regardless of largest city in the particular area, a "metro area" is simply defined as "a contiguous area of relatively high population density". By that definition, the KCK/JoCo area can be considered a metro area, and one that is larger than the Wichita metro. The July 2007 census estimate put the Wichita metro at 596K, while the latest estimates put Johnson and Wyandotte counties alone at 688k. I've changed it to reflect Kansas City, KS metro area. Wichita is certainly the largest city in Kansas, but by definition, is not the largest metro. Ryan2845 (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding my voice: I think KC Metro should count, even if it doesn't qualify as largest city. The same issue arises with Maryland and Virginia, where the D.C. centered Metro area is the largest. In Maryland, it is referred to as the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area (the population center is closer to D.C., but the suburbs stretch between them), and in Virginia simply as Northern Virginia. In the latter case, it isn't properly centered around any particularly large city in Virginia (there are cities within it, but they aren't the center; NoVA is an adjunct of D.C.). If there is some name for the KC Metro area that distinguishes it from Kansas City, feel free to use it, but if it has the largest population, it doesn't matter if it is centered around an out of state city. -ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I could go with that, just so long as it is differentiated from being Kansas City, MO (although technically the same metro area)...In other words, how it is now is fine by me. Good thinking putting Kansas City, Kansas metro area. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I made an edit to make it even more specific. This does three things I think: 1) Specifies that it includes more than just Kansas City, Kansas. 2) Doesn't give the impression that KCK is the central city 3) Makes it clear that the metro area straddles the state line. I wish there was a way to also include Wichita, but I couldn't figure out a way. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to tinker with the infobox to where it has "largest metro area" and "largest metro area centered in state" or something similar?? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thats what I was thinking, but I can't figure it out. We could always propose a change at the city Infobox page. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi @Sbmeirow: I was wondering why you removed the Kansas City MO-KS urban area from the page. As you can see in these references here ^[1][2] It is the largest metropolitan area in Kansas. Kansas City MO-KS is the official MSA name because it is in both states. I also was looking at pages like Florida and New Jersey and as you can see they also have their largest metro areas on their pages. I’m curious as to why it’s hidden away in the tiny info box instead of being in the lead as it is the most important place in Kansas.

The Topography section includes the statements

It is a popular belief that Kansas is the flattest state in the nation, reinforced by a well known 2003 study stating that Kansas was indeed "flatter than a pancake." [ref]Study finds Kansas Flatter Than Pancake[/ref] This has since been debunked, with most scientists ranking Kansas somewhere between 20th and 30th flattest state, depending on measurement method.[ref]Fracas over Kansas pancake flap[/ref]

The study may have been well known and even scientific, but it was not a serious scientific study. The first cited article says of the study:

The results, published in the tongue-in-cheek Annals of Improbable Research, have created a flapjack flap among geologists and others in Kansas.

"My guess is you could put Colorado in there, the way they're calculating it, and it would be flatter than a pancake," said Lee Allison, director of the Kansas Geological Survey. "I think this is part of a vast breakfast food conspiracy to denigrate Kansas. It's a cheap shot."

Sheesh, the Annals of Improbable Research. Should it even be mentioned? Anyhow, I have added a link to the "study" itself on AIR's website, so that anyone bothering to even look at the URL will see that it is indeed "improbable". --Thnidu (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's worth including, simply for the sake of debunking or showing it to be a joke. As a Kansan, i've numerous times had someone from out of state say something to me along the lines of: "Didn't some study prove Kansas was flatter than a pancake?" Most people seem to believe it was a genuine study, not a joke. Might help to change "well known 2003 study" to something like "well known 2003 tongue-in-cheek study" or something like that. Ryan2845 (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thnidu (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I have never never heard people from Kansas referred to as Kansonians. It's usually (or always) Kansans. Can't figure out how to change it myself, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsesemerson (talk • contribs) 17:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In the section entitled "Important cities and towns" I have changed the chart from cities with a population of 10,000 (37 cities) to cities with 15,000 (25 cities). I thought the chart with 37 cities took up undue space on the page, and I don't believe the section loses much by eliminating those towns with populations between 10,000 and 14,999. It's a fairly arbitrary cut-off in either case, but one argument for adopting 15,000 as a meaningful number is that this is the population statutorily required to become a "city of the first class" in Kansas. Comments on this change are welcome. -Kgwo1972 (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, I updated the table data recently and wasn't sure why 10k was the cutoff. At least 15k has the "first class" city reasoning behind it. There's a lot of cities in kansas hovering around the 10k range, but not many nearing 15k, so hopefully it will keep the table from needing extensive updating too. Ryan2845 (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from changing the capital city from Topeka to Google. This is just a publicity stunt by the mayor to get Google to notice the city. Changing the official name of a city--especially one as established as Topeka--takes more than just a simple "proclamation". If you change the name to Google, it WILL be reverted. Bhall87^{Four Score}_{and Seven} 04:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I added an inline note about it; probably won't keep all of it out but should help a bit. Go ahead and remove it in after a month if I haven't done it already. AlexiusHoratius 04:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It is only for one day and EXCLUSIVELY as a April Fool joke.--IViking (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Please add the correct reference points on who thought and suggested the Google Kansas Name, It's listed above, it was Ryan Gigous that thought of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.201.162.178 (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

So? This whole publicity stunt is over and done (has been over and done since April 2nd) and probably 95-98% of people have forgotten it even happened. Also, if included in an article it would be better placed in the Topeka, Kansas article, not in the Kansas article. Bhall87^{Four Score}_{and Seven} 17:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The temperatures should be in Celsius!! 153.1.30.116 (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As the US uses the Imperial system of measurement, no. Falcon8765 (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There are 7.5 billion people, most of which use SI units, to which the 300 million inhabitants of the USA have also officially adhered to. Wikipedia is not a localised but an international tool. Therefore only SI units should be used, i.e. °C or °K for temperatures. If it is necessary for the USA, local units can be added. Have also a look at the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Units_of_measurement.

As for climate there should at least be two indicators: mean monthly temperature and monthly rainfall. Mean montly maxima and minima is an addition. A standard climate diagram showing the two key indicators mean monthly temperature and monthly rainfall should be added. I can do that, if we agree an units and indicators. Mregelsberger (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Temparatures are still in °F almost 10 years later! The reasons why this is wrong are clear and have been stated. No one done the work though? I might come back later to take care of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.145.174.93 (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there a reason that Kansas doesn't have any history for the last 100 years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.244.56 (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What kind of history are you talking about? California's history stops in the 1930s, New York's history stops in the early 20th Century. After establishing the state and noting its significance in the formation of our nation, the rest of the history tends to fall toward the individual cities and any type of political or demographic history would be included in those sections. Bhall87^{Four Score}_{and Seven} 01:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)