This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Urban studies and planning Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning 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.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Geography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Geography To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{ WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles. Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes Map : See Wikipedia requested maps Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places Stubs : See Geography stubs

The reason I removed the word "territory" is that the term is ambigious. A uppercase "T" territory is one that has been Incorporated (e.g. Palmyra Atoll). A lowercase "t" territory is one that is unincorporated. (e.g. everything else). I hope this helps. - Hoshie 07:41, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I believe the article means in USA law, not "in law" in general. However, not being a Columbian, I can't amend the article as I don't know whether to put US law, or whether this is something federal or state or whatever....someone Stateside please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.20.85 ( talk • contribs) 08:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure if it is a U.S. specific term. I think it depends on whether the other common law jurisdictions have it as well. If they don't have the word, then maybe we should qualify the definition by saying in American law. Does anyone from the British Commonwealth know anything about whether they have unincorporated areas there? -- Coolcaesar 15:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply

(A British reader responds: There's no such thing as an "unincorporated area" in the UK. I've never heard the term used outside the US.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.196.56 ( talk • contribs) 14:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply

A Google search turned up plenty of uses in Canada and Australia. I haven't tried it with other countries. Would someone familiar with the organization of local government in Canada or Australia care to enlighten us? Thanks. Doctor Whom 20:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply

The term is most definitely used in Canada, and some very large communities have chosen to remain unincorporated for tax saving purposes. Other have chosen to lose their incorporated status and merge with surrounding rural communities. Since the provinces have constitutional jurisdiction over municipalities, the rules regarding them are different for each province. I know in my own province, Alberta, some of the largest communities are unincorporated. See Sherwood Park, Alberta and Fort McMurray, Alberta, and see the good information in Hamlet (place). Kevlar67 12:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply

From reading the interwikied article in German, de:Gemeindefreies Gebiet (roughly municipality-free area), it is clear that such areas exist in some German states as well, and to some extent in Switzerland also. And those countries are not common law ones, are they? This article clearly needs to be more international in scope. 217.208.26.177 22:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Ironically enough, the apparent intent of the anon editor who raised the issue was to remove US-centric bias, not to add it. I've had to revert edits in other articles that have backfired in the same way. Doctor Whom 01:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Also, I should point out that using Columbian for American is very archaic and would not be understood by most people. I know what you're saying because I have a bachelor's degree in history, but most people don't know much about history! -- Coolcaesar 15:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I dont really belive this article is still a stub, it seems pretty informative, maybe some legal info is needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doodle77 ( talk • contribs) 00:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I just caught on to this. Where are unincorporated communities signed with the term "unincorporated"? In California and Virginia, unincorporated communities, if they are signed at all, are usually signed in the name of the county. For example, Alta Arden is signed as "Alta Arden, a Sacramento County neighborhood," and in the D.C. area, Rosslyn is signed as "Rosslyn, a neighborhood of Arlington County." If Freekie doesn't give a concrete example soon, I'm deleting his/her edit.-- Coolcaesar 09:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree. This edit is rather too vague to remain as is. I don't doubt that there may be cases like this, but at the very least there needs to be at least one specific example. older ≠ wiser 12:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Wisconsin. They used to be settlements (for lack of a better term) with names, which got swallowed up by townships (six-mile-square). There are signs showing where the old towns were, listing them as "unincorporated." But what I'm talking about fits under the definition of the first bullet point (a neighborhood that is within a town), so it's no big deal - I just gave a more specific description. I'll see if I can get a picture for you, but either way, feel free to edit the article in any way you see fit. - Freekee 03:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, see, it's kind of confusing, since towns in Wisconsin, are like civil townships in Minnesota and Michigan and are not themselves "incorporated" municipalities. These towns and townships are county subdivisions established under provisions of general law. Their powers are limited by the provisions of the statutes. On the other hand, with incorporated municipalities, like cities or villages, the people in an area incorporate as a municipal corporation. Such municipal corporations have considerably more powers than general law entities. The confusion arises because in other states, towns are just another type of municipality. And even in MI, MN and WI, some townships have powers which approach that of a municipality, so it can be difficult to make meaningful distinctions. BTW, it's not quite accurate to say the settlements got swallowed up by townships -- townships in these states were generally the first form of organized local government in many of these areas. It'd be probably more accurate to say in most such cases that the communities were never incorporated. In the case of a place within a Wisconsin town, I think this would more closely fall under the second bullet point. older ≠ wiser 12:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I concur. My understanding of townships is that they were surveyed first and then the settlements within them came later. -- Coolcaesar 17:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC) reply

So what you are saying is that in Wisconsin (and some other states), towns are technically unincorporated. Even though they have governing bodies. I don't think the article and/or bullet points explain this. Sounds like you should do a rewrite. :-) As far as my edit, I don't think either bullet point quite explains what "unincorporated" means in this context. Perhaps something like a neighborhood or other community existing outside of an incorporated municipal government, within a larger unincorported area, or away from a larger urbanized area. My point is that these unincorporated "towns" are really just neighborhoods, but they have official signs, so someone is going to come here to see what that may mean. - Freekee 16:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Unincorporated Kansas towns often have a green city limit sign stating the town name and "Unincorporated" underneath, where incorporated Kansas towns list "Population: X,XXX" underneath the city name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmcdonald ( talk • contribs) 17:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

On 9 November 2005, User:Gurubrahma inserted this edit [1] which doesn't sound quite right. In California, we have many unincorporated settlements away from cities (the second part of the second category) and many unincorporated neighborhoods surrounded by incorporated cities (the first part of the first category). The first is exemplified by Glen Ellen, California and the second is exemplified by East Los Angeles, California.

But we don't have neighborhoods that are shared across city borders---in fact, I can't think of any (and I've visited over the years nearly every important city in the state).

Actually, as far as I know, the first category doesn't really exist; it seems to describe a situation where a neighborhood within one incorporated city merely shares the same name as an adjacent neighborhood within an adjacent incorporated city. This is kind of analogous to how the names Kansas City and Texarkana are shared by a pair of twin cities on a state border. Thus, such a neighborhood really isn't unincorporated in the sense that it lacks a city government. My understanding is that unincorporated means that one doesn't have a municipal government at all, which means one doesn't have a city hall, so one has to go to the county government to lobby for changes to local services. In the case of physically gigantic counties like San Bernardino, this is the difference between driving 1 mile (if one is driving to San Bernardino City Hall from a San Bernardino residence) versus 100 miles (if one is driving to the county seat from the unincorporated hamlet of Trona).

If Gurubrahma doesn't defend his/her position soon, I'm going to get rid of this original research.-- Coolcaesar 03:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not certain precisely which statements you're objecting to. Based on your description, I'm assuming that it is this bullet point:

• a neighborhood or other community existing within one or across multiple existing incorporated areas (i.e. cities or towns). One example is Clifton, Massachusetts.

But, are you objecting to the statement in its entirety, or only the bit about spanning multiple existing incorporated areas? I don't think it is that unusual to refer to unincorporated communities within a larger municipal entity. While the example given, Clifton, Massachusetts, seems to fit the bill for spanning municipal boundaries, I don't know anything about the details and I'd probably describe that as a neighborhood rather than a UC. But I think the idea behind describing it as a UC is that "Clifton" is not an incorporated entity -- the locale by that name is a part of one or more municipalities, but is not itself an incorporated municipality. There are quite a lot of such entities (depending on how you define incorporated municipality). In the midwest, there are multitudes of small communities that are within a civil township, which provides a level of municipal services and local government. But the communities often have a distinct identity apart from the surrounding township and are not incorporated. older ≠ wiser 14:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, what I'm objecting to is this concept of applying unincorporated to neighborhoods that are clearly governed by a city government, when the very definition of unincorporated is land that doesn't have a city government. For example, Nike's headquarters sits in unincorporated Washington County but is surrounded by Beaverton, Oregon. I have never seen a legal professional using the term "unincorporated" for a neighborhood within a larger city regardless of whether that neighborhood spans other cities or not.

I'm well aware of the situation you describe for townships. But that's not the situation described by the phrase "a neighborhood or other community existing within one or across multiple existing incorporated areas (i.e. cities or towns)." The phrase is describing a situation where a named community lies "across" or spans multiple corporate entities (analogous to the situation where the Kansas City metropolitan area spans two separate municipal corporations named "Kansas City,") as opposed to the unincorporated towns which are fully encompassed by civil townships.

My suspicion is that Gurubrahma isn't law-trained and is inadvertently promoting a neologism or original research on Wikipedia, which violates the No original research policy. -- Coolcaesar 06:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I think that what the confusing passage is trying to get at is that unincorporated can refer to both senses -- you seem convinced that it only refers to the complete absence of local municipal government, while the implication is that the named entity as such is not incorporated.

Re, townships, I don't see the distinction you are making -- there are countless little hamlets that are situated precisely on the boundary between townships or in some cases at the corners and overlap into four townships. I don't see how the phrasing implies the situation you describe with Kansas City, which is really two separate incorporated entities that happen to share the same name. older ≠ wiser 10:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply

The Czech Republic has also no unincorporated areas. Every place belongs to a municipality, except for military areas which have their own "governments". I would add the Czech Republic to the list but I am not sure if it should be there because of the existence of the military areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.151.83.161 ( talk) 14:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply

This article discusses, but fails to make a very clear distinction, between unincorporated areas and unincorporated communities. The first is an area, usually very sparsely populated, without any municipal or local level of government. The latter is a community or settlement that is not incorporated as a self-governing municipality. I think the statements in the section Countries without unincorporated places may a little misleading. While it may be true that there are no unincorporated areas (the first sense), there are almost certainly settlements in these countries that are not incorporated municipalities (the second sense).

I'm not sure what to do about this though, as there is already a great lack of any sort of references for this article. older ≠ wiser 01:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm not convinced that these two concepts are distinct. In my personal experience, there is a gradational range in unincorporated places -- from well-defined communities that happen not to be legally incorporated as municipalities (example: Blountville, Tennessee) through a diverse variety of situations to sparsely populated (or unpopulated) areas lacking any local government. The article describes the diverse meanings of "unincorporated" reasonably well, although some references sure would be nice to have. ((Also, the fact that a settlements are not incorporated places does not necessarily make those settlements "unincorporated places," as they may be components of larger areas that have municipal governments.) -- Orlady ( talk) 02:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

(after ec) There is very little similarity between an genuinely unincorporated area, such as the unorganized territories in Minnesota, or Maine, or some other states, where there is for all practical purposes no local level of government, and unincorporated settlements where there is a distinct cluster of population, but which is not separately incorporated. I think the statement about there not being any unincorporated areas in some countries illustrates the confusion between these concepts. There are almost certainly unincorporated settlements in these countries, but such assertions are made because of the lack of clarity in distinguishing these concepts in this article. That there can be unincorporated settlements within incorporated areas is exactly the sort of confusion I'm referring to. older ≠ wiser 02:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

"a neighborhood or other community existing within one or across multiple existing incorporated areas (i.e. cities or towns). In this sense, a community is part of a municipal government, but not separately incorporated from it. For example, Hyannis, Massachusetts is an unincorporated village within the town limits of the larger incorporated town of Barnstable." The point is valid but the example is not. Note that villages are not a valid political body in Massachusetts; the smallest possible municipality under law is the town. Note that the town of Barnstable provides all the services to "Hyannis". I think it is inapporpiate and misleading to call it an "unicorporated village" when it incorporation is impossible to begin with. With this logic, however, Manomet and Cedarville in Plymouth, MA; Bryantville in Pembroke, MA; and Weymouth Landing in Weymouth, MA could be considered "villages" to simply because there is no legal definition or capacity to become incorported. I nominate the example for deletion when someone can come up with a more appropiate example. Dexta32084 ( talk) 23:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Your point about potentially misleading terminology is valid, although the general point being made with the example is still valid. While it is true that there is no incorporated "village" as implied by the term unincorporated village, the distinction would be the same if the terms were changed to unincorporated community or unincorporated hamlet, or other even more circumlocutory phrasing. If you'd prefer community or hamlet to village in that example, I'd have no objection, but I don't see that it would make much of a difference. older ≠ wiser 23:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually, since Hyannis is as good as any other New England village. We could have just as easily used Pinardville, New Hampshire or Riverton, Connecticut. The concept of a distict, recognized center of population which is part of a larger incorporated municipality is well established, and Hyannis is clearly one of them. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 00:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

This article states that in Norway "…a handful of unincorporated cities exist within ordinary municipalities". What is this supposed to mean? In Norway, cities are municipalities. I know that people sometimes (even often) refer to the settlement that is the administrative centre of a municipality as "the city", but that is not formally correct. Such a definition would also make all cities unincorporated (except maybe Oslo), so the quoted text would still be wrong or misleading. I believe the situation is the same in Sweden. Svalbard might be unincorporated, though, but I am not quite sure about what exactly "incorporated" means. Ters ( talk) 15:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I think the main problem is that there seems to be an underlying assumption that a municipality basically corresponds to a particular community (town, city, settlement of any kind). This is simply not the case in Norway, where a municipality is the local government unit responsible for a certain geographical area, which can contain any number of separate communities. As such, every square inch of Norway is assigned to a municipality, without exception. In fact, some municipalities in sparsely populated areas are even larger than counties in more densely populated areas of the country. Naming certain cities as unincorporated communities makes little sense, because (with the exception of the capital, Oslo) no Norwegian municipality is intended to govern a single specific city in the first place. Maitreya ( talk) 14:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply

I came to this article because I keep seeing the term Unincorporated area used in Wikipedia to describe places, particularly ski resorts/mountains in the state of Victoria, Australia. The one I had looked at today was Mount Baw Baw. I have been visiting these places for 50 years and never heard or seen the term outside Wikipedia. The whole section titled Australia has only one reference and it's only about the Northern Territory.

What is this section really on about? I see it as a form of polluting garbage because enthusiastic but misguided editors keep copying bad styles from each other and creating a new but unnecessary usage for the term in articles that don't benefit from it. HiLo48 ( talk) 02:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I concur. The problem is that there are a lot of people out there who do not understand what the term unincorporated means. The first problem is that unincorporated strictly means no municipal government, so it's inappropriate to apply it to places like Hyannis, Massachusetts, which is merely a neighborhood, not unincorporated. The other problem is that it's predominantly used only in American English and it's inappropriate to apply it outside of that context. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 21:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't agree. Firstly, the term "unincorporated" is used to refer to areas that are not a part of a municipality in Australia. See for instance this list of municipalities and unincorporated areas [2]. On that page (page 3 of the municipalities list you can get by clicking on the "search: municipalities" link, if it doesn't work), you will see both "Falls Creek Alpine Resort (Unincorporated)" and "French Island (Unincorporated)". This isn't in a list of places, mind, but a list of municipalities!

So you can't deny that there are areas in Australia, which are described as being unincorporated. Considering municipalities are more commonly known as "local government areas", it seems difficult to describe "unincorporated area" as being a false description of what French Island is!

Now, local government in Australia and America are completely different. We've only got one level; in many respects, our LGAs look like counties in America (although obviously the responsibilities and councils are different). For instance, at least in Victoria, suburbs, cities, towns and "rural districts" very rarely correspond in any way to LGAs (in Melbourne, there's only one council which has no suburbs that are not apart of another council!).

I've just tried adding a few paragraphs that explain some of the differences. My comments were added to try and put the Australian situation in perspective. But this isn't really the right place.

In reality, I begin to think about whethere or not Wikipedia should have an article on unincorporated areas. The difference in local government between Australia and the US is sufficiently great, that the similarities between "unincorporated areas" are going to be trivial enough they're better dealt with in separate articles.

(I've also just noticed that "unincorporated community" redirects to this same article, and by a reasonable standard, I think it's possible to say that almost all communities in Australia are unincorporated, because we distinguish between (say) the City of Melbourne, and Melbourne the city. At least, this wouldn't be more misleading that the current standard. But this isn't something to take up *here*. Wikipedia is systematically crap and narrow-minded.)

— Felix the Cassowary 14:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Hey. Don't get too frustrated. I learnt a lot from your contribution above. If you can get that information into Wikipedia it would clarify things a lot. I tend to agree with you that the meaning is different enough to justify separate articles for different countries. Too many Wikipedia articles cover what happens in places outside the USA as minor variations on what happens there, all inside an article originally created to describe something in the USA. Anything to reduce that US-centric approach is a good thing. Keep up the good work. HiLo48 ( talk) 21:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Compare the assertion in this piece to that of the wiki entry on Maine

"... Unincorporated regions are essentially non-existent in the six New England states and New Jersey due to the weak or nonexistent county government system.[citation needed] Nearly all of the land in New England (and all of the land in New Jersey) is part of an incorporated area of some type. ..."

"Unorganized Territory of Maine consists of over 400 townships (towns are incorporated, townships are unincorporated), plus many coastal islands that do not lie within any municipal bounds. The UT land area is slightly over one half the entire area of the State of Maine."

And, while on the subject of New England, the use of Hyannis as an example of an unincorporated area is patently inappropriate - as already cited by a couple of folks, but cavalierly disposed of by others - Hyannis is a neighborhood, once a village but no longer - as that form of government no longer exists. If we accept Hyannis on those terms as an unincorporated area, significant portions of every urbanized state in the US would fall into the category. Is there any groundswell here for designating Canarsie, BackoftheYards, Beacon Hill, or Watts as unincorporated areas? The logic is no different - hell, in Massachusetts, that would mean that the entire city of Newton would encompass 5 unincorporated areas, the former villages that comprise it.

As for the last retort to an objection about Hyannis - the response cites Riverton, CT - which is a historic district - and Pinardville, NH - which is a CDP. Neither of those fit the accepted idea of an unincorporated area, either. Irish Melkite ( talk) 03:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply

To address your second point of confusion, the term "unincorporated area" has two distinct meanings. The first is "an area not part of any municipal corporation" and the second is "a recognized and named population center which is part of a larger municipal corporation" (i.e. not seperately incorporated). In New York State, these areas are usually called "Hamlets". In New England, the second term tends to get used more commonly, i.e. for places like Hyannis. That brings us back to your first confusion regarding New England. Excepting Maine, there are almost no "unincorporated areas" anywhere in New England. There are a few oddball locations in New Hampshire and Vermont, accounting for something like 1% of the land area and significantly less that 1% of the population; other than that the entire area of the 5 Non-Maine New England states is entirely incorporated; everywhere is part of a municipality. This is unlike the rest of the country, which is why the Census Bureau can't handle it; it does not recognizes New England towns as a valid form of incoporation, though in most of New England there is no functional difference between a town and a city excepting the form of municipal government, but not its function or responsibilities. Which is why the second definition of "unincorporated place" tends to be used in New England; for example Weirs Beach, New Hampshire is often called an "unincorporated village" because it is a distinct population center; however it is part of the municipality of Laconia, New Hampshire. Locals recognize Weirs Beach as a seperate place from Laconia; but it receives all its services from and is politically part of, the City of Laconia. -- Jayron 32 05:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I did not catch what is the point to be not incorporated. A type of a tax evasion? Does not make any sense. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 05:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I would guess that it would start with not having enough population to qualify to incorporate (depending on the location). Another would be that those who live in the area may not be equipped to run their own local government for various reasons or otherwise may simply choose to not form one. Another point--I don't know about other countries, but in the US "tax evasion" is illegal - the term I think you seek is "tax avoidance" which is much different. Having lived in both incorporated and unincorporated areas and I personally find advantages and disadvantages to both. For example, if I wanted to go pheasant hunting or deer hunting on my property in rural Kansas, all I needed was a hunting license. If I tried to do that in Overland Park, Kansas I'd likely have problems with the police!-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 05:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC) reply

The point is that if you have an incorporated government, there is more local control, but more local micromanagement. I'll clarify the article.-- Coolcaesar ( talk) 10:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I think in the Australian state of Victoria (where local government is quite different than in America, see above), unincorporated areas exist to give the state government more power over what planning. I am only speculating, but this is the best reason I can think of to have a few alpine resorts separated from their surrounding lgas. — Felix the Cassowary 07:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC) reply

I recently changed the lead to read "In law, an unincorporated area is a region of land, usually a city, town, village or hamlet that does not have its own municipal corporation. Such regions are generally administered by default as a part of larger administrative divisions, such as a township, borough, county, state, province, canton, parish, or country."

This was challenged and reverted, and so I would like to explain my reasoning here so that we can reach some consensus as to the way forward. The problem may simply be in the difference in meaning from one country to another. I am in Nova Scotia, Canada, and the lead as it now stands makes no sense from my perspective. I live in a tiny community called Seafoam, which the Canadian Government defines as an unincorporated area. [3] I can assure you (unfortunately) that we do have to pay taxes, in our case to the Municipality of Pictou County. The distinction, in case it is not clear, is that Seafoam itself is unincorporated and there is no municipality of Seafoam; our services are provided by, and taxed, by a municipality at the county level. The two statements I removed, "a region of land that is not a part of any municipality" and "An unincorporated community is usually not subject to or taxed by a municipal government" just do not apply. Derek Andrews ( talk) 23:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC) reply

The statement an unincorporated area is a region of land, usually a city, town, village is self-contradictory for many places as, with the exception of hamlet, these terms often describe incorporated municipalities. I agree that the statement about taxes is highly misleading, though I'm not sure how to fix the lede. Personally (per my comments above at #this article is really about two distinct topics), I think this article is pretty hopelessly confused. older ≠ wiser 01:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Agreed that the above noted statement is contradictory. The usage of city, town and village implies that such communities are incorporated. Also agreed that this article is hopelessly confused. Hwy43 ( talk) 01:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Concur with Hwy43. Although I think the underlying problem is that Canadian English is using a different definition of municipality, one which makes no sense---which is probably due to the atrocious quality of Canadian universities and law schools. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 09:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

You only need to read Municipality to see that the term has many definitions world-wide, and even within the USA, and most are set by the highest law makers in the land, and no doubt take heed of local history, needs and circumstances. Derek Andrews ( talk) 13:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm not even sure that the terms town and village imply incorporation, at least in a vernacular sense. My nearest village is not incorporated, but I think everyone calls it a village. Whether we are legally allowed to do so, I do not know, but maybe in this jurisdiction there is no legal definition of the term anyway. Derek Andrews ( talk) 13:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

I agree that this is a tricky one, and with #this article is really about two distinct topics. The lack of references is alarming, given that we are dealing here with something that seems to be legally defined, so presumably the references do exist. Maybe the problem is that there are so many definitions - it seems like in Canada each province and territory defines municipalities, so it could be a big article. It doesn't help that this article is really about something that doesn't exist, or at least is a negative state of being. As for the lede, I think that can only be a very vague statement that outlines briefly the various uses of the term and how it is used differently in various jurisdictions. Derek Andrews ( talk) 14:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

As someone else pointed out, Maine, which is geographically larger than the 5 other New England states combined, consists of substantial unincorporated territory, though this article seems to ignore this with its emphasis on the New England states consisting almost entirely of incorporated municipalities. In addition to incorporated towns and unincorporated townships, Maine also has plantations, and it's not quite clear whether the said plantations would be considered unincorporated or incorporated. 98.221.128.109 ( talk) 14:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Please clarify the difference. -- 109.53.222.210 ( talk) 13:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Both articles are already very well written and the difference is really, really obvious. Of course, if you don't know what is a U.S. federal territory or a municipal corporation, then that could be the problem. And I don't have the time to explain. Go read a civics textbook or something. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 11:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC) reply

While it is stretching to call the underreferenced disasters that are both of these articles "very well written", I think the articles do a reasonably good job of describing the differences. older ≠ wiser 14:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC) reply

This part under United States

"Some American states have no unincorporated land areas; these include Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island"

Though Tolna, PA says its an Unincorporated Community.

I don't know anything about this subject, but I just noticed this. So I thought I'd mention it.

-- TheeCakee ( talk) 19:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC) reply

This illustrates why the long-time back merge of unincorporated community with this article was a bad idea. A state that has no unincorporated areas can and, for any areas with significant populations, usually does have distinct communities that are not separately incorporated. older ≠ wiser 19:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Same with New Jersey. Ringoes, for example, is an unincorporated community in NJ. 68.199.9.187 ( talk) 20:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC) reply

I am sorry if I am doing this wrong, but it is my first wikipedia contribution. "Some American states have no unincorporated land areas; these include Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island" appears to be wrong, as I have just come from the page Goshenville, PA, and the only sentence on the page explains how it is an unincorporated community, and links to this page. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.89.68 ( talk) 23:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply

I am proposing to get rid of the Pine Valley photo for two reasons:

1. It's redundant. We already have a photo of the Contra Costa Centre sign. 2. It wasn't taken properly. A seasoned photographer would have waited a few hours for the sun to rotate to his/her back, or simply hit the sign with a really bright flash.

Any objections? -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 16:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Unincorporated area. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110928145515/http://www.statistik-bw.de/Pressemitt/2010459.asp to http://www.statistik-bw.de/Pressemitt/2010459.asp

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: 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. — ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

If anyone adds a "citation needed" tag to the lead paragraph as a result of User:Debresser's recent edit (which I just reverted again), I will (1) revert such a tag; (2) ask that editor to take it up with User:Debresser directly. The entire point of having Cabazon listed there is to ward off that kind of idiotic tagging on an issue which is a matter of common sense (i.e., municipal disincorporation). -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 11:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Having an example is in general not the best idea, and especially in a lead section. Moreover, an example does not provide an answer to a "Citation needed" tag, because a source and an example are not the same. Also, it is not clear to me what would need to be sourced in this sentence. Debresser ( talk) 12:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

In short, if a tag is added, deal with it. Don't point fingers, or insist on an inferior version because of it. Debresser ( talk) 12:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Very well, we'll do it your way and see what happens. To paraphrase Colin Powell, you broke it, you own it. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 17:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I have this page on my watchlist now. If I don't react within 24 hours, drop me a note with the issue, please. I might not have understood the issue with the edit. Debresser ( talk) 08:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Unincorporated area. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150913233847/http://www.oca.sa.gov.au/ to http://www.oca.sa.gov.au/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110202050821/http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/HistoryofCountyGovernmentPartI.aspx to http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/HistoryofCountyGovernmentPartI.aspx

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: 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) 09:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC) reply

There is no such legal term in the United Kingdom as an 'unincorporated' area or community, as far as I know.

However, it may just be that I'm misunderstanding the definitions given here, but it sounds like what those terms describe is indeed a thing that exists in all four countries of the UK.

Using England as an example: it's divided (entirely) into London Boroughs, metropolitan boroughs, non-metropolitan counties, and unitary authorities (which are all administrative divisions, i.e. they all have governments); non-metropolitan counties are further (entirely) subdivided into (also administrative) non-metropolitan districts (a county that isn't divided into districts is by definition a unitary authority, not a non-metropolitan county). Most non-metropolitan districts, many unitary authorities, and some parts of metropolitan boroughs are divided into civil parishes, which also have governments; some parishes have the status of 'city', 'town' or 'village', while others simply use 'parish'. However, many areas, usually urban areas, are 'unparished' - that is, governed at the lowest level by the unitary authority or district that they're in, and not being part of or under the jurisdiction of any civil parish.

From the definition of an unincorporated area or community in the lede, it seems that unparished areas in England (and their equivalents in Scotland, Wales and I think Northern Ireland that also exist) are unincorporated areas or communities, but it goes on to claim that the UK doesn't have any. Am I wrong? Is the definition clear enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Dent ( talk • contribs) 19:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello,

I have written a separate article on unincorporated areas in the United States. (Link: Unincorporated area (United States)) It is currently a stub but when it gets to at least start (probably C) should I link it as a main article?

Regards, Giraffer ( munch) 08:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Do stub articles on unincorporated areas in the United States that don't list the population of the area or if it has any people have notability? Jackattack1597 ( talk) 19:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC) reply

The article says that France has no unincorporated areas except for Clipperton Island. In fact, I believe that also all of France's French Southern and Antarctic Lands are unincorporated. They are divided into districts for administrative purposes, but there are no local assemblies, all officials are appointed (which is unsurprising given that there is no population living there on a permanent basis). David.Monniaux ( talk) 19:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply