Talk:Dallas/Archive 2

Crime
I thought the section on crime was too apologetic; rather than simply presenting the facts about the crime rate, it was trying to convince the reader that Dallas just wasn't as dangerous as it seemed to be. I rewrote it to make it more objective and less wordy. The original text did make the good point that many smaller cities could have higher crime rates than Dallas, but I didn't have the data on hand to elaborate on that point. --ScottAlanHill 07:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree.. you've presented it well. drumguy 8800  - speak? 21:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

FA Status
I'd like to bring this article up to FA status. I've removed quite a bit of repetition and organized some things.. plus am adding references to the article. This article needs an organizational overhaul, pruning, a more objective tone, and references. If anyone has ideas on overhauling the organization of the article, I'm up for some big changes. drumguy 8800 - speak? 23:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The Geography section definitely needs to but cut down or spin-off (occupies way too much for a Wikipedia city article) and remember there are a lot tags in that section. People will get bored of reading it because the article is meant to be about just the city of Dallas not all of the DFW metroplex's geological features. zzzz... In addition, the culture section needs to be expanded. Notable restaurants, hangouts, etc., within the Dallas' city limits? The history section needs to be overhauled. Too many subsections with one paragraphs or lists. I'm not an expert of the Feature articles nomination process but it seems most voters just love inline citations which makes sense because a lot of scholarly journals use that technique. --J. Nguyen 21:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to add a lot of inline citations.. been using the system, which seems to be what *all* article-of-the-day articles use. the places with  need inline citations.  Or, just, citations. I agree on the geology section.  Separate article, stat.  drumguy 8800  - speak? 17:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Crime
Really Dallas is not that bad in crime generally speaking. Compared to cities in its region (exp. New Orleans, Memphis, Little Rock, Atlanta) and the types of Crime, Dallas is a pleasentville just that high population and the formula for those ratios cause misrepresentation.
 * Then there should be some objective way of characterizing this. Perhaps by citing some comparison of crime rates in all the cities in the region, or all cities in the country (rather than just the large cities), or crime per unit area, or whatever.  The article does mention that the crime is centered in specific areas.  Perhaps there is a general tendency for crime statistics to be misinterpreted as meaning an entire city is dangerous (which is rarely true), but that should perhaps be discussed in a more general article about crime statistics, rather than dealt with here, where it would sound apologetic (e.g. "Aw c'mon, come down to Dallas, we're not that bad.")  --ScottAlanHill 22:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Population?
I just reverted some edits by an anon to the article lead here. I invite review of that, but I didn't think it was appropriate to be editing census data without any discussion. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I put the disputed tag in the demographic section because I also noticed that the demographic information about the racial makeup of dallas, listed in percentages, adds up to WELL over 100%. How is this possible?
 * No, the racial makeup adds up to 99.99%, which allows for rounding off just right. "Hispanic" is not a race, and text actually says: "35.55% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race."  Hispanic versus not Hispanic is independent of race, it turns out.  You can be black and Hispanic, white and Hispanic, Native American and Hispanic, or any of those races and not Hispanic. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a serious mistake in the population listing for Dallas. It is the 2nd largest city in Texas. On the Texas Wiki page it is also cited as #3 and San Antonio is ranked as #2. Even the official site of SA lists its populations as 1.2 million...3rd largest city in Texas. Thoughts? ---Norm
 * The reason why Wikipedia is going with the 3rd is that they're following the U.S. Census 2005 estimates of city populations not the 2000 report. According to the U.S> government estimates, Dallas was the 2nd populous city in Texas but was overtaken by San Antonio in their 2005 estimates. Also note, look at Wikipedia's major American city articles because the majority of them are using the U.S. Census' recent estimates not the 2000 report. --Who What Where Nguyen Why 19:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Dallas was 2nd largest for many years, until San Antonio annexed an outlying area a few years ago (something Dallas can't do any more, having annexed all available areas already). It's hard for everyone to make the shift after decades of Dallas being #2.Lawikitejana 18:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Dallas is for sure the bigger city, if not because of its massive metropolitan area alone...people are coming to Dallas in droves because of the cost of living, its unusually cosmopolitan atmosphere, and the jobs...If you look around, its almost as if the city is turning itself inside out (in a good way). I think the next census you see, Dallas will easily be the 2nd biggest city in Texas over San Antonio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.214.145.6 (talk • contribs)


 * Dallas can technically annex land to the southeast of the city, but should they? Uhm, probably not ;).  drumguy8800   C   T  01:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

How is Dallas #1 in crime?
Ok, Atlanta is one of the nation's biggest cities and year by year on the FBI stat sheets they're ranked in the top five. We do not even make the list. We don't have the racial characteristics to play a violent city that Atlanta does(being predominantly Black) and the city of Dallas(almost all White and Hispanic with pockets of Black areas). --Anonymous
 * This statement is somewhat misleading, because there are only nine cities in the US with populations over 1 million, and that list excludes many places people think of as "big cities", particularly Atlanta, Detroit, etc. I have changed the paragraph from "highest overall crime rate for all US cities...over 1 million" to "highest crime rate for the nine US cities...over 1 million" which will hopefully make people freak out less.  I think it would be good to include in the Crime section the ranking of Dallas (or Dallas-Fort Worth) among all major metropolitan areas in the US, for comparison.  Here's a website that might give us a start: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004902.html .  It's for "select" cities, however, but does include many more than 9.
 * Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be a reference for the statement that Dallas was #1 in crime among the 9 cities in the first place; at least, I'm not seeing the crime rankings in the references provided. That should be remedied, or this claim should be removed (as it seems to be bothering some people).
 * Oh, and I hope Anonymous doesn't mind my fixing up his/her spelling a bit. No offense intended.  --ScottAlanHill 06:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Dallas does have a large black population. Almost the whole southern secter is perdominatly black. And Dallas isn't a city of saints. I live in Oak Cliff and I see crime played out everyday.

Climate Correction
Humid subtropical is looked now as a term that was misused for much of the U.S. in previous years. Subtropical meaning expierencing wet and dry seasons but no mention of a "winter". Dallas exp. all four seasons to some extent and they all can be distinctly seperated from one another. Temperate Grassland is what the national weather service label North Texas, with some outlying suburbs being in the Humid Temperate zone. Easy to tell which zone you are in. Simply look at the vegetation, if you see Loblolly pines and get somewhat more of a Southern like feel you would be in the Humid Temperate zone.

Communities vs Neighborhoods
I'm not sure that this is the appropriate place to ask, but I couldn't find a better one, so here goes. The City of Dallas category box separates various areas into neighborhoods and communities. What's the difference? -- Brb1081 14:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * They certainly aren't organized to the best of their abilities.. if you have a knowledge of neighborhoods in Dallas (any at all) your input would be greatly appreciated. The main driving concept would be that a "community" is a group of neighborhoods.  For example, Lakewood is a community in the East Dallas area.  One neighborhood in said community is Junius Heights.  Feel free to move anything around as you see fit..  drumguy 8800  - speak? 19:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Are Texans Southerners or not?
They share many similarities as well as differences. If you ask southerners "What'd ya think about Texas?". They will most likely say "Dem's cowboys is a hell of a football team but ain't nothin like dem' dawg's"(or what ever college team they support) which I learned from my stay in the Atlanta area. They also have a big of an ego as we texans do. They just love all of their south from Louisiana to North Carolina they can brag and tell you why they should have won the war. But my question is are we Texans southerners or not, even though we fought for the confederacy its not really glamourized here, while over there in school instead of saying the pledge they sing dixie to the confederate flag (a common joke in Metro Atlanta). I think Geography would have alot to do with it. The south is so similar to the last detail, it seems like an endless amount of land with all the same vegetation. Sometimes a nice drive to the Houston area from my home in Dallas reminds me of the trees so common in Georgia, the graceful tall pines in houston, and the flowering magnolia's, with large majestic live oaks and spanish moss draped trees with the small palms remind me how beautiful the southland was it truly is God's country. No wonder generations of people still remember those who fought for it. Don't get me wrong I love Texas but is it okay to say your both a southerner and a Texan?
 * Yes. Texas is in the South. There were slaves here, an agricultural economy, and was part of the Confederacy during the Civil War. In my opinion, it's one of the most Southern states, and no doubt the most Southern outside the Deep South. Look at this article: Southern United States for more info.
 * Yes, Texans are southerners, without a doubt...our heritage is deeply routed in the south.

P.S. In the article, it says that Texas is always listed as a Southern state. So there you go. :) Stallions2010 02:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Technically it is ok to say you are a southerner and a Texan, but the perception of a Texan is skewed throughout the country and amongst themselves. Texas had a very insignificant slave population first off, mainly in the extreme east portion of the state, and Texas only reason for joining the Confederacy was after relentless persuasion and corrupt bargains between Southern officials and the newly admitted Texas legislator, might I add Sam Houston resigned immediatley after Texas' secession and is quoted to have said "For Texas to have join the movement of Secession is to nullify everything which has been done for its Independence". Culturally the two share many characteristics and many differences. Texas is said to have one boot in the West and one in the South. Texas lacks a major presence of an African-American minority throughout most part of the state, a key figure that stays consistent through the majority of the south. Texans do not see the civil war as a moral obligation which southerners seem to not be able to let go. Climatical differences change what is availabe to be done with the land as you come deeper into Texas. Texans generally have a feeling of being independent, hence the name "Lone Star State", their feelings of being unique give them pride. Also Texans ancestry make them quite different, In the south you had mainly a English, Scottish, and French ancestries, while in Texas as well as those German, Czech, and Polish are also common. Perhaps the most alike between the two would be their religious associations and their conservative stand points.


 * I like the boot metaphor - that's a new one for me. I usually say that East Texas (pardon the capitalization; it's a TX thing) is more Southern culturally than the rest of the state. East Texas folks have a lot in common with Louisiana, even sharing their media outlets in many areas. The rest of the state tends to be more western (U.S.) or Southwestern in nature.Lawikitejana 18:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sister cities
It says there are six, but eight are listed, and only one extra is accounted for. I can't tell where the error is, but something's up. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Slaves?
In the pre-Civil War days, were there any slaves in Dallas or the surrounding areas? I've heard that there were. If this is true, this information should be incorporated into the article. Stallions2010 21:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

At the time of Slavery, Dallas was a meeting point for cattle herders and was settled by few. However some newcombers to Dallas, particularly from Alabama and Georgia, had brought along their slaves. They found the lack of percipitation and the desert like temperatures during the summer and frigid like temperatures in the winter gave them difficulty in growing crops to the economic value of which they had done in their previous homes. An area where slaves where most abundant which is close in proxmity to Dallas would most likely be Marshall, TX and all of East Texas. A very suitable climate for establishing a plantation like society. Also Houston and Beaumont had a significant Slave population with rise of cotton.
 * Thanks. I'll incorporate this information into the article. If you could provide any citations, that would be helpful as well. Stallions2010 23:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

What is a good article?
The Dallas article failed the following listed criteria of WP:WIAGA.

1. It is well written. In this respect:
 * (a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;
 * (b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);
 * (c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style;

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:
 * (a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;
 * (c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;

3. It is broad in its coverage, addressing all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);.

The Copyeditor 03:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain please? Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 03:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This article has some "citation needed" tag throughout the article. I am not saying it lacks sources, but there are claims that need to have references. The lead section does not summarize the article at all. All there is in the lead section is how big Dallas and its metropolitan area are. Overall, lead section is does not have any breadth on Dallas and is too short for an article of its size. The article body is not "broad in its coverage". The government section is a stub and doesn't have anything about the city's politics. This section is incomplete. The economy section doesn't really say anything about the city's economy&mdash;it's past, present, and future. All there is in the economy section is what companies are located in Dallas and its metro area. Is this enough explanation Jaranda? The Copyeditor 04:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

A question
Dallas was where US President John F Kennedy was assassinated yet it isnt even mentioned in the history section or the opening paragraph. Gnangarra 12:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Curious! I added a sentence about it.  It's mentioned in the History of Dallas, Texas article.. but only a single sentence.  If you would like to add to its respective section in the main history page or create its own section in the future History of Dallas, Texas (1946-1974) subpage ("Mid-Century"), that would be greatly appreciated..  drumguy  8800  -  speak  18:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Photos
The photos, specifically the Haskell Ave, close-up Dallas skyline, and US 75 photos are of extremely poor quality and composition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.240.218.174 (talk • contribs).

By the year 2010...
The sentence goes, By the year 2010, the North Central Texas Council of Governments expects 10,000 residents to live within the loop. Since its talking about population shouldn't be under the population section, not history. Also which loop, loop 12 or IH-635. --Geokid7 02:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)geokid7
 * That would be the downtown business loop. Over half a million people live w/in loop 12 and over a million live w/in I 635.  drumguy  8800  -  speak  05:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Photo reverts WHY???????????????
What's going on here?

We've had photos added, then reverted, then reverted again. What is the objection to the photos??

Vivaverdi 00:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC) who has never understood why Talk items run chronologically down the page rather than the reverse, so that the most recently added section should be the the TOP where it can be easily spotted....
 * I "investigated" the photo reverts. Those images that were reverted had no copyright information and were taken from copyrighted websites. Consider, the copyright paranoia going on Wikipedia it was justified. --Who What Where Nguyen Why 00:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Page format
The initial display of the Dallas article in my browser appears as if the article's text was blanked. The screen is empty except for the citybox on the right. I guess this is due to the TOC being moved to the right. You might want to reconsider the format changes. Thanks Postoak 18:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Source quality
I've deleted the 2006 population estimate. The source, while possibly credible were no sources available, does not appear to be as reliable as the U.S. Census Bureau.
 * First, the estimates from NCTCOG and the U.S. Census Bureau do not appear in agreement.  NCTCOG estimates the 1/1/2005 population of Dallas at 1,250,650 and the 1/1/2006 population at 1,260,950.  The U.S. Census Bureau estimates a population of 1,213,825 for 7/1/2005.  Clearly, Dallas did not lose 37,000 people in six months and then gain back 47,000 in the next six months.  I'm inclined to trust the U.S. C.B. source slightly more, for reasons I'll explain below.
 * Second, the NCTCOG estimate appears to be a quick estimate rather than an in-depth one. NCTCOG prepared the estimate in a little over three months, while the U.S. C.B. estimate was nearly one year after the fact.
 * Third, NCTCOG is not in the business of counting people (U.S. C.B. exists specifically for that purpose); it's a planning association of local governments. Also, while it is possible that NCTCOG did not inflate their numbers, it would not be disadvantageous to them (or the region) to produce a slightly higher population estimate.  At best, this issue is a tie between NCTCOG and the U.S. C.B.
 * Fourth, we strive for consistency between population estimates on Wikipedia (among other issues). If every article on a U.S. city used a different source for its population estimate, readers would be correct in questioning the validity of every estimate on every article page (not to mention edit wars (heck, look how contentious it gets even now!)).  We are lucky that we have one source from which we can obtain population information.  We should use it. Ufwuct 22:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I just realized that an existing wikilink in the article (in the first sentence no less) supports my above points. The population is 1,213,825 for Dallas.  For consistency in the Dallas article, all city articles, and articles pertaining to ranked lists, please, let's just use the data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Ufwuct 22:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair Park
Fair Park is in South Dallas. Who keeps writing that's it's in east dallas.
 * I dunno but you're right, it is.  drumguy  8800  -  speak  14:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This is debatable. If you look at a map, Fair Park is more east of downtown than it is south.
 * Its less geographic and more neighborhood identity. Fair Park is included by the City of Dallas (see here) as part of South Dallas.. we try to follow official city standards here in the article.  drumguy8800   C   T  21:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Metropolitan area
According to the Southern United States article, Dallas is the largest city of the largest metropolitan area in the South. This is important (it could also fit under trivia) and should be incorporated into the article. --Stallions2010 22:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

GA passage
I think there's really no doubt about it this time around. Text is readable, the article is very well-sourced (though not as much as it could be) and I like the images.

Now, if it were a featured article candidate I'd narrowly reject it, but if it could get tighter references and a more comprehensive intro, I think it could fly there, too.

(Also, shouldn't the infobox be headed "City of Dallas"?)

Congratulations! Daniel Case 03:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Dallas South?
remove the statement claiming Dallas to be the largest metropolitan area in the south. The lines of where the south end and starts are to unclear when speaking of Texas.
 * Southern United States The article should clarify that. As defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, Texas is the westernmost state in the South. Therefore, the statement is valid. --Stallions2010 22:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Lake Highlands
Lake Highlands is clearly in East Dallas, You can tell just by going over there. Who wrote that it's in North dallas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.64.124.33 (talk • contribs)

Its clearly its own area. I put it as such and edited the Lake Highlands and North Dallas articles. drumguy8800  C   T  04:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
No consensus, see Talk:Houston, Texas. Duja 07:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Houston, Texas → Houston
 * 2) San Antonio, Texas → San Antonio
 * 3) Dallas, Texas → Dallas

Like Chicago, New York City, and Philadelphia, the three largest and most famous cities in Texas certainly don't need to be disambiguated by state, and using the city name only (without , Texas) in each is consistent with WP:NC(CN), and consistent with the Wikipedia convention used for almost all other large cities in the world. In each case, the name alone page redirects to the city article, so there are no ambiguity issues.

DO NOT VOTE HERE. Please vote on whether you support or oppose all three moves at Talk:Houston, Texas --Serge 19:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review Dallas, Texas
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Rlevse 12:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
 * Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
 * Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day.
 * Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&amp;nbsp;mm.
 * Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
 * Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
 * Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
 * article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 41 additive terms, a bit too much.
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

Survey on proposal to make U.S. city naming guidelines consistent with others countries
There is a survey in progress at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) to determine if there is consensus on a proposed change to the U.S. city naming conventions to be consistent with other countries, in particular Canada.
 * This proposal would allow for this article to be located at Dallas instead of Dallas, Texas, bringing articles for American cities into line with articles for cities such as Paris and Toronto.--DaveOinSF 16:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * However the proposal would allow U.S. cities to be inconsistent with the vast majority of other U.S. cities and towns, which (with a few exceptions) all use the "city, state" convention. -Will Beback 23:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Fort Worth
I have proposed a WikiProject for Fort Worth. Please show your support by going here and adding your name to the list of interested Wikipedians. To improve the quality of Fort Worth-related articles, I believe it necessary now for this project to exist. This article, although not yet a featured article, is of signficantly higher quality than Fort Worth's article is. Thanks! Stallions2010 02:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Coordinates
Howdy, your longitude latitude is in an unusual position compared with other big US cities covered in Wikipedia. And you do not use the same general format either for long/lat stats. Just nit-picking. In fact, it seems to me to hyperlink to another coordinate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.31.198 (talk • contribs)
 * I'm not so sure I see what you're talking about. All US city articles I've seen have their coordinates at the top right of the page.  Also, a quick check has shown me that the coordinates provided are in fact correct.. where did it send you?  drumguy8800   C   T  22:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)