Talk:Texas/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Misc

What About The Alamo?!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradagain (talk • contribs) 16:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Added WNBA blurb

Just for completeness' sake, I added a quick couple of sentences on the WNBA teams and appropriate league championships to the basketball section, after it mentions the NBA championships by the Rockets and Spurs. Nothing fancy. Palironsat 08:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Error

I noticed that the the total area for Texas varies between two articles, this one and the List of US states by area article. So, my question is, which one is correct? 24.240.39.207 00:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The one on the List of US states by area is incorrect. I fixed it. Thanks for raising the issue Dabomb87 01:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Article Split

For the following reasons I think that the article on Texas should be broken up into other smaller articles. 1) the article on Texas is 66 kilobytes long and according to the Wikipedia: Article size guidelines articles should not be that large. This article could easily be broken up into the following smaller articles: 1) Texas Culture - 2) Texas Health Care & Medicine - 3) Education. If we created these 3 smaller articles and linked to them from the Texas Article this would bring the Texas article back down to about 40 Kilobytes which is the general size Wikipedia articles should be. Eric 16:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The article already has subarticles. Culture of Texas and Education in Texas already exist. Article size is recommended but not a rule. The article itself could be trimmed. I'm removing the banner. Postoak 00:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this is a very large article and hard to navigate/load/etc, please split it. Matt K 3:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that is laughable that a state should get more than one article for that stuff, a whole article on its health care and medicine? On its culture? That can be included in this article, your just taking up space in wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.164.65.229 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 2007 January 23

Please see WP:NOT - specifically Wikipedia is not paper space is not a concern. Given that Texas is bigger and more populous than many conutnries of the world, seperate articles are needed to cover these topics. Johntex\^talk 17:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There are no pages on new york culture, or california culture. Most countries probably only have one page on them for everything, but the united states alone already has at least 50 for each specific state. I think one for each state should be enough. And while it may be more populous and "bigger i nsize" (however that is supposed to mean more culture), a whole different country is more diverse culturally than a state of a country. While texas does have its own brand of culture, having lived there and several other places I think it can still be called "american culture", which can be found anywhere. I think a section on it in this article should be able to cover the unique cultural traits of the state.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.164.65.229 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 2007 January 23

I support the split of the article because it does take up quite a bit more space than the average article. I believe that if any other state article has a larger than average size, then it too should split. The fact that us Texans know that it should be split because of its size is irrelevant (however true ;D). If the Texas article exceeds traditional or average size standards, it is a general rule that either the accomadator (in this case, wikipedia) should change, or the Texan attribute should modify itself slightly to fit. Other Texans are less willing than some of us Texans to change ourselves slightly to accomodate others. In this case to fit with standards, it would be much simpler and less of a hassle for the Texas article to be split than for Wikipedia to change its standards. As I said before, if New York or California (or any other state article) should have an overly large article, then they, too, should split so as to fit the standards set down by Wikipedia. Simply stated, just change the dang article and move on t' the next sitiashun!! 67.186.251.240 23:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Daniel "Texas" Padia (Native-Born Texan currently residing in Utah. "Dang!")

I would suggest you check out Wikipedia:Summary_style on how long articles are commonly handled. Some of the information in this article is too fine of detail for an article on Texas itself. The New York article contains less markup than Texas, which inflates the size of the Texas article (for example, see the references). The subject of Texas is far more deep than your average article. You can write many books on this subject, which is not the case with most articles. The article already attempts to break itself into smaller articles; therefore, it is already split. The only thing that might be beneficial is to remove some of the more fine details that are perfectly suitable for an article on Texas Culture, Texas Government, etc. but not so important in the grand scheme of the state. For example, Oklahoma State losing to Ole Miss in the Cotton Bowl a couple of years ago most certainly does not belong here, but would be perfect for the Cotton Bowl article. -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Texas HISTORY: split AND merge?

It's March 2007 and I just modified the History section by linking to Tejanos because there was no mention of Tejano settlers. As it existed before I modified it, there were a great many DETAILS in several sentences about Stephen Austin and his settlers, whilst not even mentioning anything at all in even ONE sentence about non-Anglo settlers...or should we try to make people believe no Tejanos existed in Texas history circa 1800 through present? ;-)

I also added a brief on their role in the Texas Revolution and a brief history leading up to the revolution -- only the pre-1800's history that is relevant to Texas' formation/secession. So long as there's still mention of these historical basics, feel free to modify. But what is a history of Texas if it doesn't include the events that led up to Texas' very EXISTENCE, and the role that a major portion of Texans, Tejanos, played?

But taking a step back from what those "history" paragraphs say and looking at the bigger picture...

1. There is also a History of Texas article. Brief history here (with a link to History of Texas), then details in History of Texas? Or merge these two articles and make people click to see the history?

2. Also, do we really need the paragraph on "education" in the HISTORY section? It opens a can of worms: why no "history of..." Texas Rangers? Texas roads? And everything else the State funds and/or reformed recently like rural electricity?? Even history of Texas music, rural electrification and co-ops (half the State wasn't even on the electriciy grid at the same time Texas reformed its education in the mid-1900's...), cowboys, indians -- and even NASA FFS -- would all be just as relevant and important as one small aspect of history like education; with a paragraph on each, like education has, just this section of the Texas article could go on forever. So maybe put "education" -- and "oil" -- in History of Texas and keep only briefs of MAJOR importance to Texas history on this page?

--Jeff

LBJ relationship?

Does anyone know if Sam Johnson is related to the Texas political family of Lyndon Johnson, whose brother, father and paternal grandfather were all named Sam or Samuel Johnson. TonyTheTiger 21:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

SEVEN flags over Texas

Frequenly omitted from the list of flags over Texas is that of the Republic of the Rio Grande, which was in existence for 283 days in 1840. For information on the Republic of the Rio Grande, see Republic of the Rio Grande. -- Loye Young, Laredo, Texas. 5 January 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.40.84.210 (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

• It's ommitted because no country afforded it diplomatic recognition of any time. There have been other micronations declared within Texas as well. Johntex\^talk 09:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Architecture"?

If we're going to have a section on "Architecture" in Texas, then it'd better be about architecture, not just about tall buildings. Skylines arent really what architecture is about. The section makes no mention of the architectural landmarks we have all across TX (examples: [1][2][3]), or the history of architecture in TX. And the section makes no mention of any of the buildings designed by world class super architects such as Tadao Ando, Louis Kahn, and Philip Johnson (all in FW), I.M. Pei (in Dallas), or César Pelli (in Houston).--Zereshk 22:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Since no one seems to take any interest in this issue, I take it that it's OK with y'all if I change the title of the section to a more accurate and relevant title like "skyline profile"? When I was a grad student in Architecture, the faculty rarely, if ever, included skyscrapers as works of architecture. At most maybe we would glance at a Norman Foster building because of his use of green designs. But that was about it.--Zereshk 23:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

illiteracy

Okay, wow what a kiss ass to texas. Did you know 1 in 3 texans is functionally illiterate. I think that deserves to be included, but the education section is so biased. There is a very high rate of unwed teenage pregnancies and poverty is abundant. It has the highest uninsurance rate in medicine. I am taking state and local government in texas and this is IN the book I have. I am thinking aobut just adding all that stuff in myself because all I have to do is hit ctrl-f and I found that the words "literacy" and "environment" were nowhere in this article. Texas is a very poor off state.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.164.65.229 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 2007 January 23

If you want to add reputable citations to the article you are welcome to help work on it. Given your tone, though, it seems you just want to be insulting. If that is your goal then you can find another place. Wikipedia is not your soapbox for insulting people you don't like. Johntex\^talk 17:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I just find it kind of sad that this article does not contain things that texas is reputable for. It looks like people are more focused on just buttering up and even going out and dedicating more articles to such things. I will find the sources and work on that.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.164.65.229 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 2007 January 23

Fantastic, we will be much pleased if you make a meaningful contribution. Johntex\^talk 18:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So far, your references are weak. You can't say "Some studies..." and then quote a single study. Furthermore, the reference isn't even to a study, its to a presentation by one person (Carolyn Bacon Dickson). Who is she anyway? Additions need to be backed up by reliable sources. Also, we try to avoid weasel words such as "some" and "many". Finaly, please format your additions in the same reference style as the other references in the article. Two different styles is confusing and unattractive. Thanks, Johntex\^talk

I consider the department of education and government sites more than credible. I will work on it later though to improve on it. 05:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.164.65.229 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 2007 January 23

If it were the whole department making the claim, probably so - but one invited speaker is not necesarily speaking on behalf of the department. In any case, "one" is not "some". Johntex\^talk 07:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, the flow of the Education section is absolutely ruined. This is the problem when a nOOb editor thinks that he or she possesses the literary (and research) prowess necessary in encyclopedia editing. This is a common occurrence in Wikipedia, and is usually combatted by gaining consensus beforehand. Mentioning illiteracy is not a problem, but inserting borderline vandalism (because the sections seem to have been written by a functionally illiterate person, coincidentally) is a major one. My advice: give up on major articles and start creating/editing articles on niche trivia (as I do). Those articles will function perfectly with the types of sources you consider credible and the limited writing capability that you possess. Know your limitations; the rest of us picked up on them quite easily. Dirtydan667 23:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree those paragraphs are not appropriate as written. I am moving them here to the talk page where the new editor and everyone else can work on them a bit Johntex\^talk 06:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)  :

Carolyn Bacon Dickson claims there are three major problems stated with the education system in Texas. One is the shortage of teachers; after a period of three years, one-third of the state's teacher's has left the field and in five years a full half. The second is the drop out rate of college students, with only one-fifth of ninth graders receiving a college degree in six years. The last is the drop out rate of high school students, with one million leaving school each year. Dickson claims there is one third drop out rate.[4]

Another costly problem is claimed to be the high rate of illiteracy in Texas. Out of the estimated 44 million americans unable to read, at least 6 millions of those reside in Texas. Half of the adult population in Texas is afflicted with these problems, with many not even having the literary competence to fill out a job application.[5] The urgency of this matter is reinforced by studies that suggest that Texas ranks near the bottom of the nation in the literacy of its residents. Over 50 percent is ranked in either the lowest or second lowest literacy level, which suggests an inability to fully contribute in the workplace.[6]Even worse, the state loses billions of dollars annually due to the most illiterate Texans being condemned to unemployment or low paying jobs; this leaves little room for tax revenue. [7]

Lance Armstrong

Texas Sports states that "Seven times Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong is from Austin, Texas." This is technically incorrect. Lance was born and raised in Plano but currently lives/resides in Austin (actually Dripping Springs, Texas if I am not mistaken). --ProdigySportsman 03:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I hate to sound like Bill Clinton, but this hinges on what the definition of "is" is. Or maybe the definition of "from". There are two questions here, one of time and one of proximity:

1. How long do you have to live in a new town before you are from that new town instead of the town where you grew up? - Lance has lived in the Austin area for at least a decade. That is a pretty long time. He seems to me to have set his roots in the Austin area.
2. The second question is one of proximity. Dripping Springs is very close to Austin. Definitely within commuting distance. Austin is much more famous than Dripping Springs. It is normal for a resident of a suburb to say they are from the closest big city.

Therefore, I think saying Lance is from Austin is a natural convention to follow. Johntex\^talk 04:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you. --ProdigySportsman 04:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Tejas to Texas?

Because of the difficulty of pronouncing Tejas in English the name was eventually changed to Texas, similarly to the county of Bejar to Bexar County, where San Antonio is located.

Is this true? The Spanish version of this article also calls the state Texas, and the country to the south calls itself Mexico and not Mejico (although people in Spain may spell it the latter way). 68.41.174.194 05:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I second this question. I'm not sure of the origin of the spelling changes, but I don't think it has a great deal to do with anglicizing the pronunciation. I know the vagaries of pronounciation are subject to quite a bit of mutation over time, but, at least in my lifetime, Anglo Texans have pronounced "Bexar" in a manner similar to the way they pronounce "Bayer" (the aspirin brand) or "bear." This, combined with the hard "x" sound in the English pronunciation of "Texas," makes me suspect that the spelling change didn't have much to do with accomodating the pronunciation habits of English speakers. —CKA3KA (Skazka) 21:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Tejas was the Spanish name for Texas, taken from the caddo word for it, and Americian settlers (coincidentally called Texians) called Texas both Tejas and Texas. I'm from Texas and in our history books it tells about the origin of the name. I'm not quoting any sources so you don't have to believe me if you prefer not too. 72.179.185.73 00:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a good source for improving this section:

http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/TT/pft4.html

At present, I lack the time to work this information into the article, so if someone else would like to do so, be my guest. When my schedule simmers down I'll return and, if nobody else has already done so, I'll take care of it. —CKA3KA (Skazka) 01:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Austin districts

Someone please address the request below. Im not qualified enough for the job, so Im pasting the request here to attract your attention:

Hi Zereshk. I have detected a temporal inconsistency in the Austin, TX article, politics section. The inconsistent phrase reads "Of Austin's six state legislative districts, three are strongly Democratic, and three are swing districts, all of which will be held by Democrats when Valinda Bolton assumes control of District 47 this January.". I am tempted to change it to something like "Of Austin's six state legislative districts, three are strongly Democratic, and three are swing districts. Currently all six are held by Democrats", but since I do not have political knowledge about the region I judged it wiser to ask someone living there. ¿Could you please take a look at it? Charles Dexter Ward 22:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Zereshk 06:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination

I would imagine the GA nomination will fail. Sources are almost entirely missing in the following sections: Geography, Geology, Government and politics (big one), Administrative divisions, Culture, Transportation, as well as some other sections. -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

GA concerns:

• 1b) structure
  • The Administrative divisions should be a subsection of Government and politics.
  • The Skyline profile section looks out of place. The other major sections are History, Geography, Government and politics, Economy, Demographics, Culture, Transportation. All of which are very course in their subject whereas skyline is much more fine grain. Culture is probably a good home for it. Possibly rename the section "Architecture".
  • Rename "Transportation" to "Infrastructure" and merge "Healthcare and medicine" with the new section. (I like how Dallas, Texas does this anyhow).
• 1c) MoS
  • The lead needs improved and give an overview of the article.
• 2a) references
  • Some sections are almost entirely missing sources: Education, Transportation, Culture, Demographics, Administrative divisions, Government and politics.
• 2b) inline
  • * Citations are not consistent. Citations for the Handbook of Texas Online uses a template that is designed for the external links section and not designed for citing sources.
• 3b) focused
  • A 2002 Houston Chronicle poll of Texans found that when asked "Do you support the death penalty?", 69.1 percent responded that they did, 21.9 percent did not support, and 9.1% were not sure or gave no answer. is not cited. It seems to not be particularly relevant to the law section either. And too fine of detail for the main article on Texas.
  • In the politics section, the details about the 32 congressional districts is too fine of detail for the main article on Texas.
  • The Highways section is way too long. It actually looks longer than the main article Texas state highways.
  • I don't care for the use of gallery in the skyline profile section. Or maybe use Image:Xvixionx 29 April 2006 Dallas Skyline.jpg. The gallery could be moved to tallest buildings in Texas.
• 6c)
  • I'm not sure about the use of Image:Rick_perry.jpg.

Minor changes that should happen:

• "As mentioned above, Texas has 254 counties which affects the significancaue of this statistitc." The article should be referencing itself like this.
• In the politics section, we're told Texas is a conservative state dominated by Republicans but Democrats controlled the majority in the House and Congressional Delegation until very recently. This seems contradictory. The reason for this is probably the Democratic party in Texas is significantly less liberal than the rest of the country's Democrats. I don't know the reason, and I don't think readers would be expected to figure this out either.
• In the Administrative divisions section, the word weak isn't needed to describe the mayor-council system. The reader's can figure this out. I guess this would be a NPOV issue.

I'm not terribly great at grammar and spelling issues, so you should have someone look over that.

-- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Two days so far and no significants changes (mostly reverting vandalism). Is anyone even working on this? -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

None of these concerns have been attended to, so the GA has failed (hopefully this list comes in handy for anyone who wants to improve this article). -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Texas land area

The land area in square miles and in square kilometers is shown as the same number. I'm not very good at converting english to metric but I know THAT can't be right!!!76.100.192.234 03:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but see...I was counting forward with...and then I divided by...denominator...d'oh! BQZip01 15:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

In Australia they say that in America some people think that Texas is bigger than our country. Do some people seriously think that? If they do it should be in it as well. Brew-dog 11:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone is pulling your leg. I've never heard the comparison made. Kuru ^talk 12:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've heard the comparisson before, but it was done as a joke. On a side note though, it seems to be an American fascination to put idiots on TV and ask them simple questions, which they inevitably get wrong. This might have spawned from one of these TV shows. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Similar to the 'jaywalking' bit from Leno. From what I've seen of that segment, I'm sure that if you asked around the streets of L.A. long enough, you could find someone who thought Texas was bigger than the moon. Kuru ^talk 00:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you another one then. In Australia and New Zealand and England and other such places, we study world history like the World Wars and Medieval Europe, but they say in America they only teach students the name and capital of each state and every President of The United States. If thats wrong could someone set me straight on it? Brew-dog 10:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Brew-dog, whoever "they" is is wrong. That is liberal bias against America and its teaching standards. That information is taught, but is done in 4th grade (give or take a couple of years depending on the state/district you are in; Each state and local communities have differing standards on what is taught, though there are state and national minimums). I remember taking World History (which IMHO, took WAY too much time in Europe from 1000-1600 and not enough on the rest of the world), American History, Texas History, etc. I think if we look at each other's education systems, we will find both weak and strong areas in the systems, but overall a basic education is given either way. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I took European History in High School, but it was an elective — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

BQZip01, I'll back you up on the U.S. eduction system. And I'll agree that there is often bias and small-mindedness pervasive throughout the world. I would not, however, call it a "liberal" bias. It is rather more of a conservative leaning on the part of those other communities. --Evb-wiki 14:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In retrospect, I guess I should have just said "bias" and not "liberal bias," since there is bias against the US on both major sides or the political continuum. Surely France doesn't have high opinions of us, but the Iran (not really a big sponsor of the US...) isn't exactly a bastion of conservatism... — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No, and many Australians and New Zealanders don't think much of the United States either. The government of each may be allies, but the people are not. I think possibly the original rumor of geography originated from shows like the Simpsons (and that was a very poor accent impersonation).

Question

The article states: In 2007 Texas had a gross state product of $1.045 trillion I have two problemes with this. First, I believe the year 2007 is not done yet; therefore, we do not know how much Texas's gross state product (GSP) for 2007 will be. It is possible the this figure ($1.045 trillion) is an estimate. If this is the case, we need to label it such and cite a reference. Second, this "estimated" GSP is not cited anywhere. There is a link to the BEA website on which our "estimated" figure is clearly missing. [8] This website gives information about the GSPs of each state for the year of 2005. As far as I know, the BEA will release their data about the 2006 GSPs in a few months.

I don't understand how we got this "estimated" GSP for 2007. In any case, it needs to be cited properly. Please give your opinions, and whether or not you agree to change this line back to the official figure provided by the BEA. Thank you, (Eddie 22:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC))

Yeah. Remove it or cite it. BQZip01 17:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. Johntex\^talk 20:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Because I was unable to find any kind of citation for this "estimate", I changed the figure back to the official 2005 BEA data. Thanks for your cooperation, (Eddie 23:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

US kept the claim of Texas from the Louisiana Purchase till Mexican-American War?

This is incorrect. The Adams-Onís Treaty signed by Spain and the US ended the claim of Texas from the Louisiana Purchase. The Mexican-American War was a result of the annexation of Texas by the US and and the dispute about the Texas-Mexico border after the Texas Revolution. This is stated in article about Republic of Texas, and Florida. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.76.63.65 (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Image sizes

There are reasons to make images larger, but not many. Explain why these images are inadequate when defined by user settings. BQZip01 06:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If a user specifies an image to be at 300px, then most of the images on this page will break section lines. The default image display without a user changing is 180px, which can be small or too large for certain sections. Even with an image size of 180px, the three images for largest cities will break into the next section. This is the reason why images for the "largest cities" section are set at 150px, instead of default. Images on this page have been at around 250px for years and no one else has complained about it. Images at 250px are most common throughout Wikipedia—provided that they do not break into another section—and seem to be most aesthetic, please do not force your personal preferences regarding image sizing into articles. Different sections have different formatting issues and challenges so images should not all be set at one size for the entire article. Also, you placed {{fact}} for the statement regarding half of the population residing in either the Dallas–Fort Worth or Houston metropolitan areas. If you were to have more knowledge about your own state, you would know that there are 11.5 million people residing in the Houston and Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan areas combined (Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington has 6 million and Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown has 5.5 million) as of the July 1, 2006 estimates by the US Census.[9] See list of United States metropolitan areas so you can add the figures for yourself. If you take 11.5 million divide it by 23 million (Texas population), you get 50 percent. —RJN 14:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that breaking section headings is a good reason to hard code the image sizes. Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images, we should allow the user's preferences to set the size in most cases. Whether the images do actually break the section headings is not a universal experience. It is very much dependant on user-specific factors such as monitor size, resolution, window size, etc. I recommend we remove pixel settings from all the images. Johntex\^talk 15:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Johntex, we've never had this discussion before, have we? LOL!

RJN, I made the same argument (this topic has been discussed ad nauseum), but realize that different people have different settings on both their monitors and their wiki-settings. The breaks are always going to occur at odd places no matter what, it just depends on your settings. Imagine a monitor set to 1200x1600 resolution with pictures set at 300px. No problems there and the pictures probably look sharp and crisp. Now put the same page on a 600x800 screen. The image is clear, but combined with the wikipedia bar on the left, it takes up more than half of the screen! I agree that the pictures look better larger in wikipedia, but let's go with default until a consensus builds to increase the size.

While they may have been that way for years, that doesn't make them right. CAUTION!!! Hyperbole ahead!!! The same argument was made about slavery and other unjust laws too. In all seriousness though, I've only been on wikipedia for a few months and I just noticed it. Maybe if I'd been on wikipedia earlier I could have caught it. I noticed you changed your comment after your orignial post. Please don't. Add it to the bottom of the thread especially if it is after someone else has responded.

Oh, and if someone wants to talk about a bicycle shed, tell them where to shove their bicycle.BQZip01 16:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There are reasons to make images larger (or smaller), but not many. Generally, all images in an article should be the same size. There are, of course, exceptions, e.g., an image in the intro section might be bigger, maybe images on different sides of the page, etc. If I'm adding images to a page, I prefer the default setting (granted, sometimes an article is text heavy and needs a prominent pic), but, if I'm adding just one or two and there are already others, I'll conform to someone else's format. I also don't believe that breaking section headings is necessarily a good reason to hard code the image sizes. IMHO, that's not a big deal. Finally, because not everyone views the article at the same dimension/settings, the default size is more universal and user friendly. (If the user sets his size preferences out of whack, that's a personal issue.) Basically, the images should be as uniform as possible within an artice, and the images should never overwhelm the text or be assaultative. My 2¢. --Evb-wiki 14:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be only one person here who wants this article's images in a format that looks best on his/her monitor. Everyone else here believes they should follow Wiki-guidelines. Please respect that and quit reverting the changes. BQZip01 19:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

population of biggest cities

If you were to have more knowledge about your own state, you would know that there are 11.5 million people residing in the Houston and Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan areas combined (Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington has 6 million and Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown has 5.5 million) as of the July 1, 2006 estimates by the US Census. See list of United States metropolitan areas so you can add the figures for yourself. If you take 11.5 million divide it by 23 million (Texas population), you get 50 percent. —RJN 14:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC) RJN, please understand that I agree with you and I know the basic population of my state and related metro areas. But the fact remains that you need to cite the claim. How hard is it to reference the information you just showed? (It would have been less typing to put that into the article than to have posted it here). In accordance with wikipedia policy, please assume that all edits are done in good faith and don't take it personally. BQZip01 16:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? Remember, this is Wikipedia and there could be many authors. Anyway thats a lot of people. Never knew that. 72.179.185.73 01:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the table of the biggest cities is referenced. If it is then the data doesn't jive with the reference (49?) list of biggest US cities? for example, the 2006 estimated population of Laredo, TX is 231,470....yet it's not on the list here.

Extent of sports section in main article

RJN, i'm not sure it's reasonable to simply revert a good-faith edit by an IP (who, from their contribution list, may never have contributed before), and not at least explain why you think paragraphs or sentences about football, baseball, golf, lacross, hockey, and soccer belong in this section, but one sentence on basketball is adding too much information. Also, please don't revert anyone and call it a minor edit. i'm adding it back so all sports are treated similarly, and wikifying it.

it seems reasonable to mention the main professional sports teams in the main article, but i have no strong opinion on how in-depth this section should be. if you or anyone else think it's too long, pare it back fairly. --barneca (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This was the original sentence which already included the mentioning of basketball:

"Other popular sports in Texas include golf (which can be played year-round because of the South's mild climate), basketball, fishing, and auto racing."

Basketball was already mentioned and all sports are treated equally. I didn't think listing teams on the main article was a good idea because people will keep on adding more teams to follow. So I thought, if anyone wanted to list teams and write things in depth, they can add them as much as they want in Culture of Texas. This is why articles have split-off articles so the main page can be a summary. If you were to read featured articles, the main page is very summarized and do not go into that much detail with lists and such. When you have time, please see the United States article—especially the sports section. —RJN 23:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

i saw the word basketball in the paragraph above; i deleted it when i added the new sentence.

to be honest, i'm not even a basketball fan; i originally noticed this edit only because of what i thought was a pretty abrupt edit summary reverting a new editor, and marking a reversion as a minor edit.

but since i started it, a quick semi-random look at 6 other articles about large states shows that the sports section is handled in two different ways. in California and New York, no professional sports teams are listed individually, but there's a separate Sports in California article. in four others (Pennsylvania, Washington, Illinois, and Florida) all major sports teams are listed in the main article. in all four, the sports section is as long, or longer, than this one.

frankly, i'm surprised there is no Sports in Texas article. hell, there should probably be a Football in Texas article. if there was, or if the Culture of Texas article went into any significant detail, i'd be all for reducing this section to 2-3 sentences. but it seems odd to list teams for football, baseball, even hockey without listing NBA teams.

--barneca (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Image placement

Portraits with the head looking to the reader’s right should be left-aligned (looking into the text of the article) when this does not interfere with navigation or other elements. Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings [not first-level heading], as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. Instead, place the image directly above the heading. See WP:MOS#images. --Evb-wiki 22:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. BQZip01 02:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Architecture (again)

Im rewriting the architecture section. It reflects poorly on the Texas article. "Architecture" is not about skyscrapers. That's a popular misconception. Having a section called "architecture" talking about our tallest buildings only reveals how little the author of that section knows about architecture. Architecture is like venice, the Taj Mahal, the Bauhaus, Kyoto Gosho, or Kharraqan towers. Not some tall building which will have no effect on our culture (and wont probably even be around) 50 years down the road.--Zereshk 09:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

South or Southwest

Folks, is Texas considered in the South, Southwest, or both? Folks on the San Antonio page are having this discussion and figured you might want to weigh in an get a consensus on the Texas pages. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

76.3.129.132 00:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC) The list of cities in Texas that are South, and are southwest is ridiculous. The only cities in the south west are in WEST TEXAS and in the desert (EL Paso). West Texas is the South West, everywhere else in the state is in the South. It looks like someone who knows nothing of geography or the people of Texas made the list. How is Dallas in the south, but Fort Worth in the South West when they are right next to one another. Austin is Definitely in the South, Chorpus Christi is on the Gulf Coast, I consider San Antonio in the south also. For the record I'm from Austin, and now live in the southwest (Nevada) and people ask me, "What part of the south I'm from?" when they hear me speak, not, "What part of the southWEST are you from?" 76.3.129.132 00:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully...

1. This is one person's opinion
2. Wikipedia does not use original research of which yoru anecdotal evidence clearly is.

To take from the Fort Worth page, "Fort Worth bills itself as "Where the West begins" and still celebrates its colorful Western heritage."

All I'm saying is that there are multiple points of view on the subject. Not one is particularly accurate. I would agree that Texas is part of the South, but the state is frickin' 800 miles across. It's gonna be in several categories. Let's just build a consensus before we change everything.

Oh, and just to needle you a little, you think Cart McCoy will show up for the football game again. I sure hope so. Make our life a little easier. Tell him this year he should hike up his big girl panties for the big game :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

>>Texas is essentially a Southern state. While certainly it can be considered Southwestern as well, one has to consider exactly what is meant by the "Southwest." Except for the trans-pecos area, Texas differs considerably from the desert southwest of Arizona and New Mexico. Texas is best described as "western South"...that is, a place where Southern history, traditions, religion, politics, customs, etc, are flavored with western dress, open-spaces, and free-spirited individuality. On the other hand, New Mexico and Arizona are the southern West, with nothing classically Southern about them.

>>Referring to something mentioned earlier, it is important too to keep in mind that, while Ft. Worth advertizes as "Where the West Begins", the phrase did not originate to distinguish it as the gateway city to a region seperate from the larger South...but rather a place offset from the "Southeast" or "Old South" in many ways. That is, post-bellum settlement (overwhelmingly from other Southern states), new opportunities and a booming cattle industry (which, in itself, has Southern roots).

>>My own answer then, is BOTH. BUT...VERY much qualified by saying the term Southwest as applied to Texas is quite different than concerns New Mexico and Arizona. And as another poster alluded to, people in those states will tell you the same thing. In placing it in a region per se, Texas belongs to the South. TexasReb 17:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Whiel I'm not a Texan, I must agree with Texasreb that Texas is indeed Southern. Lol this is an entire new Kentucky and the South debate, hopefully it won't get as serious. 74.128.200.135 01:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

>>LOL. Thanks for wading in on this, 74. And yes, the Kentucky debate did go on, didn't it? :-) TexasReb 14:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This is funny. How does one define or categorize the gestalt that is Texas? It was in the South during the Civil War, but was not part of the "Old South" (except maybe Galveston). It was definitely part of the "Old West," but it's not in "the western United States." Although it's near the middle of the country (laterally), it's not midwest or central U.S. Of course, West Texas and the Valley are very southwestern in both feel and culture. Maybe Texas is just that . . . Texas. (I always thought it was southwestern, myself.) --Evb-wiki 01:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

>>Yes, certainly Texas can be called "Southwestern", but the larger point is that it is southwestern in a way quite different from New Mexico or Arizona and the like. Texas is "Southwestern" in its own right...the Western South, if you will. It was overwhelmingly settlers from the other Southern states that populated Texas after the War Between the States, and it was that culture which largely shaped and defined the state itself. Except for the trans-pecos, even West Texas, while "southwestern" in topography, still has strong Southern cultural characteristics (voting patterns, fundamentalist religion, etc) as,again, it was anglo-Southerners who first settled the area. And yes, Texas was part of the "Old West" yet the West is not really a region per se, but a group of them. For instance, Texas and Kansas and Wyoming all "western" yet they were settled by totally different groups, and the history and cultures are vastly different. And even the popular image of the West as it existed in Texas (cattle and cowboys) has strong Southern roots, as it was the cattle drovers of the Old South from which the habits of the Texas cowboy were mainly derived. And many of those Texas gunfighters and cowboys were initially ex-Confederate soldiers, or sons of soldiers and/or products of Reconstruction, with some of those legendary gunfights traceable to animosities existing between them and their previously Union opponents encountered in Kansas cowtowns or southwestern "badlands." TexasReb 14:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

All very true. Are you proposing we use the phrase "Western South" or (maybe) "Westsouthern"? Or can we just say it's in the Texas part of the United States? jk :-) I'd be ok with "Western South." --Evb-wiki 14:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

>>LOL Texas part of the United States. Good one! But seriously, I wasn't actually proposing making any changes, as the way the article opens listing Texas as being in both the South and Southwest covers a lot of differing opinions nicely. I mainly wanted to make a few observations about how the Southwest can mean different things and states counted as such don't necessarily belong to the same "Southwest." If that makes any sense! LOL

>>Of course, "Western South" is quite appropriate to use if others feel the same way. I first came across the term in Raymond Gastil's book "Cultural Regions of the United States." In it, Texas is quite rightly counted as part of the greater South, yet the South itself was broken down into sub-groups, with most of Texas being classified as "Western South." (far East Texas was grouped with the Lower or Deep South). On the other hand, New Mexico and Arizona and certain adjoining parts of other western states were, again quite rightly, labeled the "Southwest", and included in the greater West region. TexasReb 15:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

While Texas does have Southwestern influence it is again most certainly a Southern state in just about every aspect. The statement in this article should also correspond with the map on the Southern U.S. page. For example on the map from that article Kentucky is marked as light red indicating that it normally grouped in with the South by most sources. So on the Kentucky page it is stated that Kentucky is normally grouped in with the South, while still sometimes considered partially Midwestern. Texas is also in that shade on the Southern map, so shouldn't it be stated that Texas in normally grouped in with the South as opposed to it indicating that it's normally a coin toss between the South and Southwest? I think so! Louisvillian 20:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

>>Thanks for your comments, and EXCELLENT suggestion, Louisvillian! It looks like someone put it into place, in fact. I like the new wording! TexasReb 14:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

>>Looks like somebody re-worded again! LOL TexasReb 12:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC) 12:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

">>Referring to something mentioned earlier, it is important too to keep in mind that, while Ft. Worth advertizes as "Where the West Begins", the phrase did not originate to distinguish it as the gateway city to a region seperate from the larger South...but rather a place offset from the "Southeast" or "Old South" in many ways. That is, post-bellum settlement (overwhelmingly from other Southern states), new opportunities and a booming cattle industry (which, in itself, has Southern roots)."

Texasreb couldn't have said it any better. Fort Worth is an essentially Southern city. The thought may be surprising at first because of the Western image. However, take a look into the actual city and don't go by what you hear. Sure, you'll find the Western image there -- but the people will not be your typical Westerners or Southwesterners. The people of Fort Worth are essentially Southern -- heavily Baptist; the use of the words "y'all," "fixin'," etc. and the Southern dialect are in use; friendly; conservative and heavily Republican; etc. In fact, Fort Worth is in my opinion more Southern than its eastern neighbor, Dallas -- said by a native Dallasite and Southerner! I love my hometown of Dallas, but its flaws include being considered the meanest city in Texas. From personal experience, I can say that the people of Fort Worth are much friendlier and actually have a reputation for friendliness and hospitality -- a Southern quality indeed. Also, Dallas is a much more liberal city than Fort Worth; for example, Dallas County voted blue last election (not presidential, local). Tarrant County is a solid red area.

Texasreb, do you have anything to add on the Southern legitimacy of Fort Worth? Also, do you have any surveys that might suggest the majority of Fort Worth residents consider themselves Southerners? (It'd be interesting to see the results of this in comparison to Dallas.)

Also, Texasreb, I believe Fort Worth was actually settled in the antebellum period. The city was founded in 1849, and was already the county seat by 1860. --Stallions2010 22:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

>>Stallions...concerning your question as to Ft. Worth residents considering themselves Southern, the only thing I have (other than just my own experience in the area) is the results of one of the survey's mentioned in the "archives" discussion on the Southern United States page which showed those polled in Tarrant County overwhelmingly said they lived in the South, as opposed to the West. Also, you are correct about Ft. Worth being settled initially in the "ante-bellum" period (and Tarrant county residents voted in favor of secession). What I meant by the notation of "post-bellum" settlement in the comment about the city's moniker "Where The West Begins" was that it was AFTER the War when it really became a "Boom Town." But again, that nickname was never intended to mean anything like "the South stops here." LOL On the contrary, most of those early cattle barons were former Confederate soldiers, and what it really was intended to impart was that the town was a gateway to a new part of the larger South itself, one of new opportunities and all...the "Western South" (to use that term again!) if you will, as distinguished from the "Old South" of cotton plantation country. The idea among those early Ft. Worth newcomers, the overwhelming majority of whom were migrants from the southeast looking to get a new start, that they weren't still in the South would have been ludicrous. In fact, if you go back thru early records and newspapers in the city, the use of the term "Southern" and "Dixie" to denote business concerns was very widespread. Seems to me like I even ran across a listing in a few of them advertising something "The Dixie Cattle Co." or whatever! LOL TexasReb 12:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Texas is the southernmost of the continental US states, so it is for sure part of the geographic south. This is confirmed because it was part of the Confederacy (the traditional South). Texas was the westernmost of the Southern States (Confederacy), so it is surely southwest. Unfortuately there hasn't been a secession or political statement that was similar in scope to the secession of the souther states, so a correpsonding historical definition of the southwest doesn't exist unless we endorse the idea that the southwest is what we stole from Mexico in 1846, in which case Texas is not part of the southwest, because it stole itself in 1836. In Texas we don't have any problem being simultaneously part of the South and part of the Southwest, why should anyone else? I guess there are lumpers and splitters, which is Wikipedia run by? Zyzzy2

I think Texas part of the South, Southwest, and South Central US. It just depends on what city/part of the state you're in. I've had this conversation with many people from other states. People from the Northeast that I've met usually say that Texas is the Southwestern part of the United States. (Go figure that one!) Although a lot of people I've met have said that Texas is it's own craziness! HAHAHA!--Thenderson1 19:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. All in favor of listing the region that Texas belongs to as "Craziness" please sign below. (This coming from a Texan!) — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I still believe that the entire state is in the Texas part of the United States. --Evb-wiki 12:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Game Wardens

An anonymous user just removed/reworded "Texas Game Wardens—law enforcement officers working for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department—are given the most authority with respect to the enforcement of law. Texas Game Wardens can go onto private property, without a warrant, in the normal discharge of their duties and have the latitude to inspect persons, vehicles, and property with little or no probable cause.". While this could probably be worded less excitedly, the core of it is true to the best of my knowledge - game wardens can certainly enter private property without a warrant. The change labels this as a "common myth". Section 12.103 of the parks&wildlife code here seems to support my recollections. Am I nuts? Kuru ^talk 00:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(b) Except as provided by Subsection (d), the department may use information collected by an employee of the department on privately owned land only for the purposes of scientific investigations and research described in Subsection (a) and only if authorized in writing by the landowner or the landowner's agent. Unless the department first obtains the written consent of the landowner or the landowner's agent, the department may not:

(1) use other incidental information obtained on the land that does not pertain directly to the investigation or research authorized under Subsection (a); or

(2) enter or permit the entry of any information that does not pertain directly to the investigation or research authorized under Subsection (a), into a database:

(A) maintained by the department and available to a person other than a department employee;

(B) maintained by a natural heritage program administered by the department; or

(C) established and maintained by any other person.

(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), information collected under this section may only be reported or compiled in a manner that prevents the identification of an individual parcel or specific parcels of private property without the written consent of the landowner or the landowner's agent.

(d) The department may collect and enter data as necessary relating to the occurrence or harvest of natural resources in public land or water. The department may collect and report standardized annual wildlife survey information required by the Pitman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. Section 669 et seq.).

This is not "authority with respect to the enforcement of law." The activity authorized here is strictly for scientific purposes. The myth may be that this section does pertain to "law enforcement." This section also requires permission from the property owner to collect the data. Ergo, the statement is completely false and should be deleted, IMHO. --Evb-wiki 01:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, you are quoting US law, not Texas law. US laws do not necessarily apply in the same manner to local police as they do for, say, the FBI. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It is from Section 12.103 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code - "Entering Land; Use Of Information Obtained By Entry; Civil Penalty."[10] --Evb-wiki 04:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reading of this - I'm still a little unclear. Subsection A reads: (a) To enforce the game and fish laws of the state and to conduct scientific investigations and research regarding wild game or fish, an authorized employee of the department may enter on any land or water where wild game or fish are known to range or stray (...) seems to imply both enforcement of the myriad of hunting/gaming laws (bolded) and the scientific powers limited by further subsections. This is strictly curiosity at this point - without a cited non-primary source, I concur with the removal of the text, and the replacement text which seems non-notable as well. Kuru ^talk 04:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Section 12.104 is probably more on point:

§ 12.104. RIGHT TO SEARCH AND INSPECT. (a) A game warden or other peace officer commissioned by the department may search a game bag, vehicle, vessel, or other receptacle if the game warden or peace officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the game bag, vehicle, vessel, or receptacle contains a wildlife resource that has been unlawfully killed or taken.[11]

It specifically requires a "reasonable suspicion," the same standard for all other law enforcement agents. Section 12.102 also sets forth restrictive due process requirements. --Evb-wiki 04:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

thoughts on my first read

http://www.worldartantiques.com/Texas(A-K).html http://www.io.com/~tam/Museums/museumlinks.html (texas association of mueseums)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Team#_note-0 (for cowboys "america's team")

sports has no mention of the college teams in texas. the ut a&m rivalry the lone star showdown, or the Battle of the Brazos. no mention of the big 12. no mention of Texas Motor Speedway

Airports quote. maybe a new page? http://www.hotelstravel.com/cgi-bin/airports.cgi?s=Texas

could put criticism of healthcare in texas. lowest insurance rate. etc. . .

No mention of the colonia's in texas. they are a big deal. according to the colonia's site, "Texas has the largest concentration of people (approximately 400,000) living in colonias on the U.S. side of the border"

could divide the history section into muliple parts like the Texas A&M site. probably not as much as the history article, but three or four sections could do. a pre colonial, spanish/mexican, republic, and us?

right now i am focusing on the a&m site. ill help here after that article becomes "good" Oldag07 21:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

State Symbols Box

Can we please add a state symbols box like California? See this. Real96 06:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

WNBA

Why is there no mention of the WNBA? Texas has 2 teams, one in Houston and one in San Antonio. Missjessica254 18:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Largest metropolitan area in infobox

I recently added Arlington to the largest metropolitan area in the infobox because it is the official US Census MSA designation. Although primary cities are included in other state infoboxes, I see no reason why we can't use the official designation for Texas. Postoak 06:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Arlington continues to be removed from the infobox. The reason removed is that "it is not needed". Please explain why Arlington is not needed? There is no policy (that I'm aware of) that states that only two names of the MSA should be listed? I don't see any specific usage notes at Template talk:Infobox U.S. state that prohibits more than two city names for the metro area. Dallas-Ft.Worth-Arlington is the official name, what harm is there to use the offical complete MSA name in the infobox? [User:Postoak|Postoak]] 07:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason previous editors have left it out is because "locals" don't call it "Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington," just "Dallas-Fort Worth" or D/FW. There's a lot of examples where the vernacular takes precedence over the official (Rhode Island and Providence Plantations?). There's no harm, exactly, just common usage. Wyv 07:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Arlington continues to be added to the infobox. Like I said before, official MSA is not used in infoboxes. Florida's does not read "Miami–Fort Lauderdale–Pompano Beach", despite the fact that Fort Lauderdale is probably (not saying it definitely is, just from my perspective) more significant than Arlington by name recognition. You're right, it is not a policy, but it is based on consistency and common usage. It has nothing to do with only having two names; it is about being consistent in using a metro area's primary city/cities or otherwise common title. If MSA format will not be used for Florida, then we should be consistent and not use it for Texas. Most metros have one primary city in the metropolitan area, but this particular one has two primary cities that are very common to hear together. But, it doesn't really have three primary cities. If you need further proof, look to the Wikipedia page Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex (no Arlington, and that has been chosen as the primary name for the metro area) and the name of the airport, Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. Arlington is simply not on the same level as Dallas or Fort Worth in terms of name recognition, notability, size, infrastructure, etc., and that is why I do not think it is necessary to have in the infobox. Raime 13:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

For another thought, we could use "Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex" rather than "Dallas-Fort Worth" or "Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington", as that is at least the name Wikipedia has chosen to call the metro area in its article name. Raime 13:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no specific rule or policy that states the official MSA is not used in the infobox. Since the official US Census MSA name does include three primary cities for the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington MSA, there is no reason why it should not match this designation in this situation. Please see the first line of the lead paragraph of the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex article which states the official name of the MSA (and also mentions that "Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex" is an informal name). Apparently the US government felt that Arlington is at the same level of notability when it included the city in the official designation, otherwise the MSA would be called Dallas-Ft. Worth. For the consistency and common usage arguement, the metro entry is found on only a few state articles (that I can find) so it isn't commonly used. Does its use in a few articles indicate standard usage for other articles? I will request a third opinion if you feel it is necessary. Thanks, Postoak 18:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You make a good argument, but I still do not feel it is necessary. Yes, it is an informal name, that is not up for question. It is commonly used, maybe not on Wikipedia, but in vernacular. (For consistency, I'm sorry if I poorly worded my comment, but what I meant was that it should remain consistent with the Florida and Missouri articles). Even if the link is not prevalent in many articles, the name was chosen, and that is significant in itself. Very few people I know would say "I'm from the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington Statistical Area"; "I'm from the Dallas-Fort Worth region" is far more common. The U.S. government does not use three equally notable cities when forming MSA statistical regions; one could hardly put Long Beach or Santa Ana at the same level of significance as Los Angeles, or likewise Naperville and Juliet with Chicago. Cities are put for reference purposes. Arlington may be primary in the sense that it is larger or more significant than other cities in the metro area, but it is not primary in the sense that it is not on the same level of notability as Dallas or Fort Worth. For the most part, I ould think that most Americans would associate "Arlington" with Arlington, VA, not the city in Texas with a large population but otherwise not very significant traits. An MSA would never use "Dallas-Ft. Worth" as a title, just as "Greater New York" would never be used; simply because MSAs must be extremely specific. However, these specifications do not really apply to an infobox: For largest cities, the boxes do not portray official names (i.e. "The City of Houston"), but rather the very common form of the name (i.e., "Houston"). I know that there is no specific rule, but still, being consistent with the Missouri and Florida articles (which have had their "largest metro area" designations far before I put the one in for Texas two days ago) would make sense. As for the third opinion, I have no problem with that, it is always a good idea to expand a debate. I took User:Wyv's comments to be a sort of third opinion, stating that the more detailed MSA official name wasn't necessary, but maybe you feel otherwise. Raime 19:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Postoak, I went ahead and changed it to "Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex". Like you said, Arlington is prominently listed on the page in the official title, so now anyone who clicks on the link would easily see Arlington as one of the largest cities in the metro area, even without it being listed on the infobox. Furthermore, this title uses common usage/vernacular, to be consistent with other states. Raime 19:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this is good. Thanks, Postoak 03:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Lowest Point?

Listed as the Gulf of Mexico at a height of 0. The Gulf of Mexico is not part of Texas proper, it's a body of water outside the state. Can we get a real lowest point?

Actually, the Gulf of Mexico, up to 10.4 miles from the coast, is part of the State of Texas. In addition, the lowest point on land is where the land meets the water at the Gulf. Wyv 05:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that’s correct. Also, per reference #1, The US Geological Survey puts the lowest point in Texas as the Gulf of Mexico see: [12]. The online Texas Almanac at [13] also cites the Gulf of Mexico as the lowest point in Texas. In order to avoid confusion do you think that perhaps we could say “Gulf of Mexico coastline”? or "Coastline at the Gulf of Mexico"? --Chicaneo 06:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I like that idea; how about "Gulf of Mexico coast?" It's shorter and should fit better. I'll add it and see if anyone changes it. :) Wyv 07:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Education Section...written by an Aggie??

Why is it that Texas A&M's engineering and business graduate schools get their national rankings highlighted (14th and 29th, respectively), but the University of Texas at Austin's engineering and business graduate schools don't get any recognition - EVEN when they are ranked higher than A&M's? (11th and 18th, respectively)

Also, the article fails to mention many other distinguishing characteristics of the University of Texas at Austin (and the UT System in general), but Texas A&M receives recognition for their grants and when they 'opened their doors'.

It appears to me that someone was a little biased.

• Bias? It's possible. It's also possible that the editor was simply contributing what he or she could based on his or her knowledge of the subject. It doesn't really matter, though (so I choose to assume good faith), since you're free to add additional pertinent information to that or any other section of any other article. I'll import some information from the UT article later on. ~ João Do Rio 05:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• • I would assume so also, but the reference cited clearly shows UT's rankings with respect to A&M's. Anyways, it's not that big of a deal. I would have added some of UT's rankings myself, but the article is locked. If you don't have time / the will to add some UT info, I might just be compelled to create an account and do it myself.  :) 70.253.83.33 18:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I added pictures of UT & A&M campus as well as info on both. Removed statement that U.S. News & World Report consistently ranks UT as the best public university in Texas - at least once in the past few years (1997), A&M placed higher as a top 50 University.- Yale Law

Still biased and obviously imbalanced. It appears that the education section is now devoted to two schools. What about the other notable universities in Texas? The UT Austin and Texas A&M paragraphs should be condensed to one paragraph. We should add a paragraph briefly describing other notable schools in the state (ie Rice University, Texas Tech University, University of Houston, Southern Methodist University, Baylor University, etc.) Postoak 19:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the unbalanced tag based on the above. There are other universities in Texas besides UT and A&M. Postoak 14:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The A&M and UT paragraphs look good and are very informative. Maybe additional info should be added about the A&M and UT systems. Texas A&M University–San Antonio will be opening in 2009 and UT-San Antonio is one of the fastest growing schools in the state.

I'm not sure where to draw the line for inclusion of schools in the broad article re Texas, or how much info should be provided for each. (How about minimal?) There is already a link to List of colleges and universities in Texas provided at the top of the section and most of those listed have their own articles anyway. I've added some additional "promenant" universities, but I've probably missed a few, and the scope of what's "promenant" is debatable. --Evb-wiki 13:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Changing the Republic of Texas flag

In the article, the RoT flag that is used is the first flag. I believe that we should change this, due to that the flag shown was only in use during Sam Houston's first term as President. Afterwards, in Mirabeau Lamar's term, it was changed to the flag that is still in use today. Because that the current Texas state flag was in use as the official RoT flag for the majority of the time that it was a country, I believe that it should be changed in this article to match the current day flag. --RandehMann 03:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

30 flags over Texas?

Is it true the state was offered the option of splitting in 5 at statehood? What were the divisions? Trekphiler 12:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I learned about this last year. We are the only state that can split into 5 separate states if we feel like it. We still can, but I don't think that will happen. I'm not sure where the splits are, but trust me, us Texans are too caught up in being Texans to worry about splitting up. 70.113.85.225 00:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Not predicting, just wondering. (I'm writing fiction, so a "5:1 Texas" was pretty interesting). And we're always thinking about splitting up, here... ;D Trekphiler15:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

Any info about what mean Texas, the etymology? --Bentaguayre 18:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

See History of Texas#Indigenous peoples. That little nugget should probably be here as well. Kuru ^talk 20:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm making some research on this topic and just want to ask, did the spaniards conferred any other name to this state? aside from Texas? --124.107.248.94 09:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Spain considered it as part of New Spain, and Mexico considered it part of Coahuila y Tejas. --Evb-wiki 12:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Pledge

Why doesn't this page have the Texas plege on it, I will add it--67.67.161.12 02:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)