Ok. Before we get into a revert war lets go over this really quick. As we've already established, there are some cities in California that call themselves towns, this includes Danville & Moraga. Now as someone was so kind to point out, city and town are "interchangable" but looks look at the exact language of GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 34500-34504: "34502. The legislative body may, by ordinance adopted by a four-fifths vote of its members, change the name of the city. In the same manner, the legislative body may eliminate the word "city" from the corporate name and substitute the word "town" or eliminate the word "town" and substitute the word "city.""[1] What this days is that any city in California may drop and/or replace "City" with "Town" in their name. This does not change their legal standing as a city (In fact california has no legal designation of "town", you are either incorporated as a City... or not incorporated at all). In the same way if you went an legally changed your name to "Martian" - you would not suddenly be from mars - you'd still be human - just under a different name. --ShakataGaNai 00:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever. Therefore, I should revert back to the headers of "Incorporated places"[2] or "incorporated municipalities"[3] – a compromise I suggested on Template talk:Santa Clara County, California two years ago when somebody wanted to actually separately label which ones were "Towns". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize. I was just trying to explain the logic of why I did, what I did. In addition I felt that your edit comment deserved a response since it made logical sense. I meant no offense. --ShakataGaNai 06:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
