Talk:Río Rico, Tamaulipas

Untitled
I just changed "that was the last time" to "that was the most recent time". "Last" generally has the implication that no further modifications will ever happen, whereas "most recent" and "latest" do not preclude the possibility. Does anyone think it's inappropriate? Or was it too much of a grammatical detail to bother with? samwaltz 16:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with this new grammatical change. I read the sentence and wondered, "As of sometime, that was the most recent time.  Is it still the most recent time?  What is the date of that statement?"  Mrendo 13:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Location
I believe that this should go back to Rio Rico, Texas. This was moved to plain Rio Rico. The article is written in the past tense, and that Rio Rico, Texas does not now exist doesn't remove the fact that it used to exist. It would be analagous to redirecting an article about New Mexico Territory to New Mexico (state), with the justification that it shouldn't have its own article because it no longer exists. Furthermore, the wording in its present form would lead one to believe that Rio Rico as a city might not now exist anywhere, when in fact it is a small part of present Rio Rico, Tamaulipas, Mexico. However, as most of Rio Rico, Tamaulipas was never a part of Rio Rico, Texas, a wholesale redirect to that location would be wrong, too.

Furthermore there are many places in the world named Rio Rico, and so plain Rio Rico is too ambiguous. Dr U 07:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Rio Rico, Texas → Rio Rico, Tamaulipas — This city is in Tamaulipas, not Texas — Dancarney (talk) 12:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.




 * Strongly Oppose - This article is about the historical city of Rio Rico, Texas -- a city that once existed in US State of Texas. Changing this article to Rio Rico, Tamaulipas, Mexico would be a disservice to history and deny the existance of a town in Texas history. In any case, most of modern day Rio Rico, Tamps. is not part of the small historical area known as Rio Rico, Texas, therefore a re-direct would also be inaccurate. If you feel strongly about Rio Rico, Tamaulipas having its own article, a request should be made to create one about the modern day settlement of Rio Rico, Tamps.  Anyhow, the current article should be left alone; a re-direct of it would deny history as well as be inaccurate. -- Nsaum75 (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - This article is about a particular plot of land and the community that is on it. The article includes the history before and after the 1977 handover to Mexico.  The geographical coordinates listed show it on the Mexican side of the current border.  Keeping this as "Texas" would be like having an article "Mexico City, Spain" which discussed Mexico City both before and after the Mexican revolution.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  21:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Davidwr summed it up already. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  12:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

It seems to me on reading this article for the first time that it's about a cession of a tract of land more than about any city, current or former, on either side of the border. Why not name it Rio Rico cession or alternatively Horcón Tract? That seems not only more accurate but avoids conflict. Another alternative is to name it Rio Rico, Texas and Tamaulipas along the lines of Glenrio, New Mexico and Texas, although the parallel there is not exact. Station1 (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

additional citation requested
Does anybody have a citation to the court case which defined the citizenship status of those born in this territory? 69.143.223.157 (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

last sentence
I changed the last sentence to such that the residents can freely move to the rest of the US. This is not "emigration" since they are not naturalized citizen but are instead US citizen by birth according to the ruling. SYSS Mouse (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

What was the other one?
"This was one of only two cessions of land by the US to a foreign country after 1959." Don't just leave things like this dangling. You could have a footnote or a link here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.125.7 (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge
These two articles are written about essentially the same place, telling the same story. Neither is notable independent of the other, and a single article would be better if the information was all in one place. I figure the name of the town is a better choice for the merged article, because Río Rico is still an identifiable place, and it is widely mentioned in sources that talk about the border adjustment; the Horcón Tract is now indistinguishable from the surrounding land and no longer exists in any meaningful sense. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)