Talk:Austin, Texas/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Demographics Info

The racial breakdown of the population of Austin, TX on the Demographics Page does not add up. It adds up to over 120%. I don't know where to go to get the proper information to fix this. I just thought someone should know.

Someone merged the Hispanic / Latino statistics in with the rest. That's not how the Census does it: this is a separate notion from race. I'm sure that some disagree with this way of calculating things, but that's how they did it, so that's how it should be reported. Deh 14:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, the Census Bureau considers Hispanic persons to be an ethnic group, not a race. At first this seems wrong, but when you consider that there are both Black and White Hispanics (for example, people from Haiti and other Caribbean islands are often Black Hispanics), their logic makes more sense. TheMindsEye 15:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Addition to Culture Section: Volunteerism & Nonprofits

It would be informative to mention Austin's altruistic culture. The city has more nonprofit orgs per capita than most US cities (ranking 4th) and ranks 3rd (behind Minneapolis and Salt Lake City) in the nation for per capita volunteer hours given. Here are some references: http://www.dailytexanonline.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=541326f6-cef6-433a-b881-5566c1d5d84a http://www.nationalservice.gov/about/volunteering/cities.asp http://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/VIA_CITIES/VIA_cities_austin.pdf Thanks! 70.124.64.228 18:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)leftymama

Comparison to the Twin Cities

This analogy are rather daft. My hometown is Minneapolis but I've lived in Austin for quite awhile and Minneapolis:St. Paul IS NOT San Antonio:Austin or anywhere close. While Austin and San Antonio are very different cities separated by some areas with very little population (all the spaces between Buda, San Marcos, and New Braunfels), the Twin CIties are connected by relatively dense suburbs like Crystal. Also, the economies of the Twin Cities are highly interconnected, while the economies of Austin and San Antonio aren't integrated to any remarkable extent.

Agreed. Why not fix it? Also, please sign your comments by typing four tildes ~~~~. adamrice 14:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
My read of that sentence was simply that the combined population of Austin and San Antonio is similar to that of the Twin Cities, not that the cities were similar. To avoid confusion, however, I fixed the sentence. TheMindsEye 14:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"An Island of Blue in a Sea of Red"

Austin is often referred to as "An Island of Blue in a Sea of Red" with regards to the 2004 presidential race.

I am removing this sentence -- there are 174 hits on google for "An Island of Blue in a Sea of Red", and of those only 8 mention Austin (one of which is this page). Jkraybill 04:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I was going to slap it with a fact tag, but since you did the research and found that the phrase was mostly original research then deleting it was the right thing to do. Dabomb87 13:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
If you search for "liberal oasis of Texas" on Google, however, all of the hits refer to Austin. I'm pretty sure the phrase was even used in National Geographic’s cover story some years ago, so it's even quotable to a reliable source if anyone wants to dig through the back issues to find it. —Angr/talk 16:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Name that building

I've uploaded the Flickr image to Commons now. No idea if it's useful for anything in this article, though

Can anyone identify this building for me? I'd like to upload the photo to Commons, but I need to know what I'm uploading a picture of. It looks very familiar, but I haven't lived in Austin in 17 years, so I can't remember what it's called or even where it is. Thanks! —Angr/talk 00:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Its the historic John Bremond, Jr. home. It currently houses the Texas Classroom Teachers Association. Their webpage with a photo tour of the house is at [1]. TheMindsEye 01:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! It isn't the house I was thinking it was though -- I was thinking it was the Littlefield House, but the name wasn't coming to me last night. I have a second question about buildings in Austin. There used to be a skyscraper in downtown Austin made of reflective gold glass. When I look at recent photos of the Austin skyline, I don't see it. What was it called? Did it stand where the Frost Bank Tower now is? —Angr/talk 09:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
No, the Frost bldg is on Congress. The former gold building still stands, but it is now silver and is 5 or 6 blocks west of Congress. I think the story is that the reflectivity of the glass was causing problems, so they scrapped the gold off and put on a darker silver. Its also a bank. I think the building's name is Banc One. TheMindsEye 15:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Is this the one? If so, it's much more attractive now. I always thought that gold thing was an eyesore. —Angr/talk 16:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thats it. Curiously, they didn't change the window film on the lower, attached garage building - it still has 3-5 floors of offices with gold tint. I visited one of the offices and everything you see out the window has a goulhish green tint. TheMindsEye 16:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the gold tint isn't bad on shorter buildings. There is (or used to be, as I said I haven't lived there in 17 years) a medical building somewhere near Seton in the Shoal Creek/38th Street/Medical Parkway vicinity that was also gold-tinted but not nearly as tall as the Bank One Tower. My orthodontist when I was a kid had his office in that building, so I was there a lot, but I can't say I remember a ghoulish green tint looking out the window. —Angr/talk 16:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"Basically, anyone who wants a job can get one".

I'll see your unsourced generalization and raise you some anecdotal evidence... my brother-in-law, MBA from Duke, went without a job for two years before finally taking a job in San Antonio. Myself, a long-time software developer, jobless for nine months (and lucky to be hired) and then relocated to another city. People in a similar situation -- an IT manager, two other professional programmers -- whom I met while temping. Lots of people were laid off during the dot-com bust, and a lot of them had to leave Austin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.197.14 (talk) 04:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And with the current economic conditions, this problem has intensified. unemployment is high, but the jobs which are available are outside of the city limits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PioneerGrrrl (talk • contribs) 17:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

POV/unsourced issues ahoy

There are lots and lots and lots of jobs for people with degrees and without them. Basically, anyone who wants a job can get one in Austin.

Austin is a safe, free, freedom-loving, young, active, creative, cultural haven.

For better or worse, marijuana is widespread in Austin and many people have a relaxed attitude about it.

Amongst others... CryptoDerk 09:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Si. There seems to have been a rather massive set of pov, uncited additions by 66.68.118.72 (talk · contribs) a few days ago. They all have a sort of essay feel to them. I'm thinking of simply removing them all until it can be referenced. Any objections? Kuru talk 14:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
You've got my support. jareha (comments) 05:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Mine too. I noticed the same issues. Aldango 01:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sister Cities

Someone added Edmonton Alberta as one of the "official" sister cities of Austin. I reverted based on the Sister Cities International directory -- see [2] which cites Nashville as the only official sister city of Edmonton, and the current list of cities shown here as the only official ones for Austin. If I am missing something please feel free to fix. Jkraybill 15:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced edits

City of Austin
Population by decade
1840 850
1870 4,400
1880 11,000
1890 14,500
1910 29,700
1920 34,800
1930 53,000
1940 88,000
1950 132,459
1960 186,545
1970 251,808
1980 345,496
1990 465,622
2000 656,562

I'm removing the table to the right, which has been tagged as needing a source since last May. If anyone can find a source for this information, feel free to re-add it. —Angr 17:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

How about a peer review?

Would it be a bad idea to request a peer review for this article? We could find out how we can improve this article and take the next step to bring it up to GA status. Dabomb87 16:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Derekbd 23:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

austin nickname atx

For some reason adding the nickname of "The ATX" to the austin page is being highly disputed. First, it wasn't accepted as a nickname, even though it is. Now people are saying that only one nickname per city is allowed, yet, any other city america has up to like 5 nicks. Quit removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.211.96 (talk)

Please provide a reliable source showing that the nickname is in common use. —Angr 05:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not this nickname should be included in the infobox or article may be a different debate altogether, but I can confirm that this nickname is in wide use from personal experience. The Google search for Austin+ATX yields quite a few results, including several businesses and a music festival that have adopted the abbreviation. It's used mostly by younger residents and in the hip-hop community, but it is verifiable. Here's a few articles from the Austin Chronicle that use it. [3] [4] [5] Eric (EWS23) 23:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

ATX is a very common nickname for Austin Texas if someone is too out of it to realize that, then they don't belong on here editing details about ATX. It's also nicknamed Cap City but I'll let that slide because other capitals might use that too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.3.136.154 (talk) 08:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Weather stats

I really don't understand where these weather stats are coming from, particularly the average highs. They don't at all match up with the figures cited from the NOAA (nor the Weather.com). Austin my be hot in the summer, but not quite so hot as the table indicates. I am going to change it to fall in line with the NOAA stats, which I find the most credible. Vertigo700 (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


State Capitol v National Capitol

Is the State Capitol larger than the National? This article says yes, but the State Capitol article says no. It has a source, so I've altered this article to match the other. 69.129.145.210 (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

region of the country

Austin and San Antonio are considered to be in the Southwest. Dallas and Houston are in the South. This was correct on the Austin page until someone changed it so it read that Austin was part of the American South. I cahnged it back to the way it should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanny2 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you look at a map or learn some geography. Austin isn't even in the western half of Texas, It's closer to Louisiana than it is to El Paso. The southwest is all desert, Austin is far from the desert, so is San Antonio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.229.192 (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Austin is very Southwestern. You have too also look into the culture of the area and its rich Tex-Mex flavor. To suggest that Austin is in the same region as Mississippi or Alabama is just insane, also the Southwest has a history of cattle and cattle drives, both of which closely relate to Austin. The Southwest was at one time Spanish colonies (with administration in Mexico), Austin and most of Texas falls into that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guanako512 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Houston is considered in the south, so Austin should too, they share a lot of the same culture and Austin is the closest major city to Houston. Austin maybe the border of the south and southwest but it has alot more in common with the south including LOCATION.

Maybe on the whole it's Southern or Southwestern; but it could be transitional, a blend of both, not really either, or it could be more associated with one for some topics and with the other for other. Regardless, the description has changed back & forth in the article a few times without anyone providing a reference or trying to resolve via discussion first, so I've simply removed that particular description from the article. Deh (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Deh's solution. "but it could be transitional, a blend of both, not really either, or it could be more associated with one for some topics and with the other for other" is, in my experience, a perfect description. But more importantly, no one is providing a source, I doubt anyone can ever provide a definitive "I'm right you're wrong" source, and to top it all off, removing it altogether improves the flow of the first paragraph. --barneca (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Culture

Why hasn't anybody added Austin's Hispanic Culture to the page. It is very appearent almost everywhere in Austin. The Convetion Center's website has a whole page on it [6]. Hispanics make up well over a third of the city's population and have added countless contributions to the cultural landscape. Together with the San Antonio area Austin marks the beggining to the culture of Latin America, which extends down into the Latin Countries. I am going to add it and anybody who wants to also, can add stuff in. Guanako512 (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

History Merge Proposal

I propose that the History section be summarized and any information not already in the article on the History of Austin, Texas be moved from this section to that article. --Danorton (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, since there is definitely some overlap between the two.EagleAg04 (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I also think that we should merge the articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Movie Theaters in Culture:Theaters subsection?

The Culture:Theaters subsection starts with "Austin also has a strong theater culture, with dozens of itinerant and resident companies producing a wide variety of work." This suggests to me that the subsection is about stage theater, generally, not just about buildings, and certainly not about media, so I felt that the mention of the Alamo Drafthouse in this section was inappropriate. Furthermore, it lacked specificity (there are five in Austin, five more in Texas and at least one more in another state), it was not of encylopedic notability and it did not indicate how it might be considered notable. I deleted the paragraph and my deletion was reverted. I'd like to discuss what belongs in that section and what doesn't and/or if reorganizing might help. Here's some of the history

--Danorton (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Transportation - freeways

The section mentioning that it is the largest city in the US served by only one interstate highway is somewhat misleading. The entire San Francisco Bay Area is served only by one interstate highway - I-80. However, there are also auxiliary highways that loop around the bay area. (280, 680, 580, 880, etc.) These are extensions of I-80 and do not extend outside of the Bay area, so would definately not be 'interstates'. San Francisco itself is larger than Austin, and is only served by I-80 and 280. I-80 is barely in San Francisco (just the brief section fo the bay bridge in the Austin city limits.) 280 travels a slightly further distance in San Francisco and almost connects to 80.

12.161.86.130 (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

San Francisco's page on Wikipedia gives an area that shows the city itself is smaller than the city of Austin. Therefore, the comment is correct.

Kristiansr (talk) 07:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)kristiansr (talk) 1:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Orlando, FL and Austin are the two largest metropolitan areas serviced by one interstate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmc (talk • contribs) 11:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Helpful links

I think it would be helpful to add links to sites that give an overview of Austin for people looking to move here. I just recently moved here and after not finding anything here searched Google, and eventually found something. Since this is the first place many people look to for information it would be great if there were a link to a site that gives an overview of these things.Jesper.White (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Welcome to Wikipedia, Jesper! Sorry that you weren't able to easily find what you were looking for. An link to The Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce was given in the External Links section of the article, which contains information about moving to Austin. What type of information were you be interested in? Wikipedia is not a travel guide, but the information can be added if it is appropriate. EagleAg04 (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead image

FYI, a release has been secured from original photographer for Image:Austin TX skyline from Lou Neff Point.jpg, which was added by User:Sedsa1 in this edit, in case you want to put it back in the infobox. Not being familiar with Austin, I didn't feel comfortable with replacing the infobox image. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Page Protection from Unregistered Users

I don't know about you, but I'm fed up with the vandalism from shared IP addresses. I propose we request page protection so that this article can only be edited by registered (logged-in) users.

Comments? --Danorton (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
You can put in a request if you want, but it will probably be denied. This is a fairly high profile article, and the recent levels of IP vandalism (one or two incidents a day) aren't really that unusual. As a comparison, I just put in a request for semi-protection of the George Washington article, it had been hit with vandalism about 30 times in the last day and a half. AlexiusHoratius 23:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Speculation aside on what others might do, what are your thoughts and feelings about it? --Danorton (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Four incidents of vandalism in the last two weeks probably does not warrant protection. EagleAg04 (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Google Office Closed

I removed the reference to Google being one of the hi-tech companies with a presence in Austin as they recently closed their office here. http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2009/01/12/daily50.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.158.56 (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Dabomb87 (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The article linked said that while an office is being closed, that is not the only presence Google has in the city. I am adding Google back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.237.41 (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move to Austin

Austin already directs here why not have the city article there instead? NThomas (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Many decisions in Wikipedia are not based on efficiency, but rather, on avoiding the problems of future user edit-wars:  the more unique a title, then the less likely that people will be fighting over the use of that title. There has been a similar problem with the word "Georgia" which the world primarily considers to be the nation, much more than the U.S. view as being the state above Florida. Suppose the newest mega-blockbuster film became titled "Austin" while hundreds of fans decided that the word "Austin" now should point to the film, as the favorite term (sweeping the world of film fans) rather than some "Western town over in the US". If dozens of non-Americans fight & revert enough, then for a while, "Austin" might be redirected to the film, rather than the major American city.
         It doesn't really matter about logic or consistency: there are 49 Wikipedia articles with the actual U.S. state names, but unfortunately, there is the oddball article "Georgia (U.S. state)" because far more webpages & people worldwide refer to the nation as simply "Georgia". I hope that explains why the more unique name "Austin, Texas" is used for the article, even though the city name "Austin" is currently world-famous for many, many reasons, and "Texas" ranks high with "California" as a state that people want to read about. Again: the more unique a title, then the less likely that people will be fighting over it next year. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Using Georgia as an example of "another way to do it" is very good, as it shows the only other 'correct' way to handle this. Austin redirects to an article Austin, Texas, where the article has at the top a link to a disambiguation page Austin (disambiguation). Georgia instead is the disambiguation page, which then links to all the other possibilities. When there are many possibilities for a given name you can either
    • direct to the disambiguation page (and force everybody there first), or
    • link to the page most often searched for, but add a link to the disambiguation page in case that's not the one this user wanted
It is a 'guess' as to which is better for a particular name. If something else became infinitely more likely to be intended, then that could be the directly linked page. But even in the somewhat more likely case that a name became "as popular" as the currently linked page, that would only force the switch to the name directing to the disambiguation page. Shenme (talk) 05:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Moses Austin

Hi, with all due respect; Austin, Texas is named after Moses Austin, not Stephen. Stephen Austin was his brother and that was also the name of his son. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.125.47 (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can provide a cite to a reliable source for that claim, it'd be worth discussing. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • According to the Handbook of Texas Online, the city is indeed named for Stephen F. Austin. Moses was Stephen's father, who had originally planned to settle with a colony in Texas but died before it happened. Stephen followed through on his father's plans. Moses also had a brother named Stephen, but he played no role in this story. --Paxsimius (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Why did the old picture get deleted?

Just out of curiosity, but why did the old montage at the top of the Austin, TX page get deleted? I know it wasn't of top quality, but I think it gave a better and more modern view of Downtown, as the current picture is at least five years old. Why would I need to do to make sure my uploaded pictures don't get removed in the future? Wikidiculous (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Wikidiculous, 12/16/09

  • Well, the only way to make sure your uploaded pictures don't get removed is to not upload it or put it on this article.TheAustinMan (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Basically Wikipedia articles are 'owned' by a select few who get offended when real facts are added even with full citations, and when things they don't like get added, like your picture.207.38.156.111 (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Willie Nelson

I hope you all realize that without Willie Nelson, Austin would never had grown into the city it is today. Why is this fact absent from the article? --William Saturn (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yuk yuk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.189.132 (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Population wording in lead section

In prose, numerical figures of one million or higher are written as X million or X.X million. This is the proper style when writing a prose. The estimated numerical population figure for the metro area is listed in the infobox. The lead section of an article is an overview and should be a snapshot—not full of statistical numeric figures. See New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, etc. These cities have populations over one million and they are written as X million or X.X million. The wording of this has been discussed at length. See Talk:New_York_City#Estimated_population_in_lede, Wikipedia_talk:USCITY#Population_estimates, and Talk:Houston#Population in lead for recent discussions. Scottolini, you should discuss your disagreement on the talk page of the article or research prior discussions before engaging in an edit war like you are doing now. —RJN (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


What Scottolini call the "exact numbers" (which is NOT the actual population) are already in infobox to the right of the lead section. The rounded number is appropriate for the lead section, which is an overview of the article. Giving an 18 month-old estimate to the nearest person is false precision. —RJN (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Query on GAN

Just wondering regarding the GAN. This nomination was done by user TheAustinMan but it looks like he has not been a major contributor to the article. The article unfortunately doesn't appear ready for GA. Was the GAN discussed somewhere or was this just one person's whim?

--Mcorazao (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. For what it's worth, I wrote some suggestions for improvement on TheAustinMan's talk page. These may be helpful to anyone else with an active interest in the article:

  • The article has a few different banners and tags in it. As long as those issues remain the article cannot be passed.
  • The referencing is pretty mediocre. I would recommend:
    • At minimum every paragraph should have a citation (<ref>).
    • The use of bare urls (external links with no other info about the web site) needs to be eliminated. Best thing to do is to utilize the {{cite web}} template.
    • Be careful about overusing primary sources. Though sometimes these are acceptable and appropriate it is best to try to use them as little as reasonably possible.
    • Taking a look through the references the article does have, I don't see any hard references (books). It is not an absolute requirement that hard references be used but, in general, books and journals tend to be regarded as the most credible sources. News articles and formal publications are next best (and there are a significant number of those). Other kinds of web sites, even from government sources, can be ok but the more you use them the less "good" the article seems.
  • Some of the content smacks of original research. E.g. "The art that gave Austin its reputation for being weird is featured at the South Austin Museum of Popular Culture." (art alone was the source of this famous label?) Certainly statements which make bold or controversial claims should at minimum have references. Even at that make sure the references actually back up what is implied (meaning not just that "somebody" agrees with the statement but that the reference actually gives reasonable evidence that this statement is widely held by the experts to be fact).
  • There are some holes in the coverage and some odd content:
    • The history really cherry-picks its coverage. Among other things it completely skips the entire period between the 1880s and the 1970s.
    • The prose is ok but there are some areas where it is somewhat ad-hoc and a little disorganized. For example, the Theater section has very little rhyme or reason as to why each thing that is mentioned is grouped with other things. Some things are mentioned very arbitrarily (why is such a big deal made out of "Waiting for the Barbarians"? Seems like somebody added in that paragraph as advertising).
Hope that helps.
--Mcorazao (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
No, the GAN was not previously discussed. Perhaps, given the number of issues, it might be better to do a peer review instead? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Austin, Texas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately this article meets the criteria for a quick fail. In order for it to be properly reviewed, it needs the citation needed, refimprove and unreferenced templates to be removed to satisfaction (i.e. complete the tasks they assign rather than simply remove them).

I have noted the discussion on the talk page, and those notes are a good place to start with improvements to this article. Miyagawa (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Austin City Area citation

I don't know how to add a citation needed request to that section of the page without breaking it, but the section about the land area and city area needs a source.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.6.80.19 (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The easiest thing is always simply to add {{fact}} at the end of any sentence or paragraph that has a problem. --Mcorazao (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Bats on Congress Avenue Bridge

Hi! The article stated that the migratory bats arrive at the Congress Avenue Bridge in late February, but other sources disagree, all stating it starts in mid or late March.

For example, "Bats Season is Mid-March to Early November" and "Each night from mid-March to November, the bats emerge from under the bridge at dusk..."[1] and "The largest urban bat colony in North America feels perfectly at home in Austin from late March until early October" [2]. The source referenced in the article merely says "They begin their migration to Texas in February and by early spring female bats begin to form large maternity colonies where they will raise their young."

I've revised the article accordingly, and added the two citations above. However, if any natives feel confident enough to revise it yet again, feel free. GCL (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. This article is really in bad shape. I recently began putting some effort into trying to raise the article's quality but there's a long way to go. I'm sure there are still quite a number of statements that need to be revised. --Mcorazao (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Article improvement

I suggested on the WikiProject page an informal drive to bring this article to GA. Here is the timeline I proposed:

Article improvement drive
Goal Target
Sourcing
Replace all low-quality sources (including inappropriate primary sources) with high-quality sources 28 Feb 2010
Add sources to all paragraphs for History, Geography, Economy, and Demographics 7 Mar 2010
Add sources to all paragraphs 21 Mar 2010
Polishing
Polish the content in History, Geography, Demographics 14 Mar 2010
Polish the content in Economy, and Arts and Culture 21 Mar 2010
Polish the content in Cityscape, and Parks and recreation 31 Mar 2010
Polish the content in Transportation, Education, and the rest 7 Apr 2010
GA ready 14 Apr 2010

--Mcorazao (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This drive has been cancelled due to lack of interest. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It's never too late to do the right thing. I'm in. I'll specialize in the sourcing field and you, Mcorazao, you can do the polishing if no one else wants to support the drive. :) Cheers! TheAustinMan (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Education

Why is the Texas School for the Deaf not discussed in the article? The Texas School for the Deaf is older than Gallaudet University. This should be mentioned. Someone, please fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.77.151.199 (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Image edit war

Since there seems to be disagreement on the title image let's debate it here.

Survey question: Which image should appear at the top of the article: File:Night_Skyline.jpg or File:AustinWikiPic2.jpg (the other image will be put in the Downtown section later in the article)? Please also add a brief comment in the Discussion section explaining your vote. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Votes

  • AustinWikiPic2.jpg --Mcorazao (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • AustinWikiPic2.jpg --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Night_Skyline.jpg --Jr1038 (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • AustinWikiPic2.jpg --Paxsimius (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Night_Skyline.jpg --TheAustinMan (talk) 2:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC) I shall vote for DowntownAustinTexasMarch2010.jpg if that is a choice, however.
  • AustinWikiPic2.jpg --wwmiv (talk) 6:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • AustinWikiPic2.jpg -- But then I'm a little late to the party! Sorry. Just my two-cents worth.Dmartinaus • Talk 04:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Regardless of whether it is "lower" or "higher" quality, AustinWikiPic2.jpg is a good image and you can see more because it is a daytime view. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • My thoughts exactly. While the reflection in the lake is a nice (and common) effect, AustinWikiPic2.jpg gives a fuller view of the subject and is, thus, more informative. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • View of capitol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.26.185.101 (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Are you advocating a different image or for the lead or what does this mean? --Mcorazao (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
      • He/she is probably trying to say that we should put a picture of the capitol for the main image. TheAustinMan (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Neither image is "good"; however, since the subject in Night_Skyline.jpg is in higher resolution the picture could thus be argued to be "more informative." Regardless, whether or not the picture gives a "fuller view" of downtown should be irrelevant considering the large panorama of central Austin elsewhere in the article. Night_Skyline.jpg is more visually striking yet representative of downtown, more current than the daytime picture (notably, construction progress on the W and Austonian), and is the only true nighttime picture of Austin in the article. --Jr1038 (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The night image is a nice image, but it's difficult to make anything out. Frankly, I was surprised to see it at the top of the article. Agreed, the resolution of the daytime isn't all that great, but at least one can easily make out things in it. Jr1038: if there were a higher resolution photo from the same vantage point as AustinWikiPic2 and more current, would that be acceptable? I'm willing to march right out tomorrow and shoot it. Paxsimius (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Sounds good to me! --Jr1038 (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I just figured out where the AustinWikiPic2 photo was taken from: northbound MoPac, right over the river! Gonna be hard to set up a tripod in the exit lane to Ceasar Chavez... I once took a shot of Austin's skyline from the little artificial hill at Auditorium Shores (see here). I'd be happy to shoot another, more current shot from the same location, if there's an agreement that it'd be useful. Please note that when I took this first photo, I was new to SLR's and now I have a couple years experience and more equipment. --Paxsimius (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Okay, I posted a new photo. It's a pano, totally inappropriate for the top of the page, but it can be cropped. How does everyone feel about this? Any preferences where to crop it? --Paxsimius (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I feel that Night_Skyline.jpg is the better picture because it gives an overview shot of the Austin skyline from one of the most famous Austin skyline vantage points. Regardless of seeing the skyline better in the daytime picture, the nighttime picture is of a higher resolution and is more recent than the daytime photo. (Notice how in the daytime photo the Austonian crane is up, the nighttime picture does not have the crane). You should ask Wikidiculous because he is the user for both photos. TheAustinMan (talk) TheAustinMan (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • How does this look? I want this to be collaborative, but I'll go ahead and put it in if nobody responds. Paxsimius (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm a little torn. I like the photo and certainly it is more recent. The shot of the crane is a tad ugly and AustinWikiPic2.jpg highlights the treeline a bit more, which to me is significiant in representing Austin. I'd say that I am still a little more slanted toward AustinWikiPic2.jpg. --Mcorazao (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not crazy about the crane, either, but then again, is there going to be a photo of downtown Austin without a crane in the next 3 years? I do really like the trees in AustinWikiPic2; it's one of the highlights, in fact. That's why I tried to incorporate trees in DowntownAustinTexasMarch2010crop. Unfortunately, they're recent plants, so it's not as impressive. --Paxsimius (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
        • I certainly prefer the quality of this new photograph, Paxsimius. I don't like the omission of the Spring tower from this new photograph, however, and I think there could be a better vantage point which would "collect" more of the buildings together a la AustinWikiPic2. Overall, I like this picture about the same as AustinWikiPic2; that is, either one would be fine with me since there appears to be more support for removal of Night_Skyline.jpg. Perhaps an updated version of AustinWikiPic2 (taken on a clear day) would be ideal? --Jr1038 (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
          • I wanted to take a photo from the same vantage point as AustinWikiPic2, but unfortunately that's in an exit lane on the MoPac bridge. I'm assuming the first was taken during slow traffic, more or less on the go, which would explain some of the techinical issues with it. --Paxsimius (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment on resolution: Please bear in mind the resolution of the image when it is blown up is a secondary issue. The way the image appears on the article page is really primarily what matters and the resolution in that case is the same regardless of which image is used (i.e. unless someone proposes an extraordinarily low res image). --Mcorazao (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I totally agree. I assume always that few people actually click through on the photo. I know I don't, unless it's something special or I just want a better look. But since it seems important to some people, I wanted to offer a compromise. --Paxsimius (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Point taken, Mcorazao. I agree that it is more important to have a good looking image on the article itself, and in that regard AustinWikiPic2 is fine. --Jr1038 (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd go for a Night_Skyline.jpg in the daytime. Once again, this place is one of the most famous vantage points. Other alternatives include:
  • Congress Avenue vantage point.
  • Clear day photo from Mopac.
  • From the 290/I-35 ramp.
  • Picture from I-35.
  • Joe's Crab Shack vantage point.
  • A view from a high point in the UT campus. (UT Tower?) TheAustinMan (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
    • It looks like Night_Skyline.jpg was taken from Joe's Crab Shack on E. Riverside, or at least somewhere along there. I could try to get a day shot from there. The problem with some of your suggestions is that they require standing in a roadway with heavy traffic - I'm not up to setting up a tripod in such a situation. I'd love to shoot one from the Tower. Problem is, you pretty much have to buy tix in advance, then hope the weather is good. I suppose from some window in Jester or Dobie would be good, but I don't know anyone living in those places and the window would probably be dirty. They'd be really good views because then you could include the Capital. I'm still scouting around north of the Capital, though, maybe on top of a parking garage, if there isn't an office building directly in the way. --Paxsimius (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

So, this discussion has been ongoing for a little while. Setting aside what a future picture might look like, can we at least agree for the moment that there is no consensus on changing the lead to Night_Skyline.jpg? By Wikipedia convention that presumably means sticking with AustinWikiPic2.jpg for now since that has been the image on the page for a while. --Mcorazao (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I went out today to find a better location but really couldn't. Joe's Crab Shack on Riverside had too many small trees in the way, and the Pfluger pedestrian bridge had too many posts, poles and distractions. Garages north of the Capitol also proved fruitless. So the only photo I can offer is the cropped one from the hill at Butler Park. --Paxsimius (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi. I'm new here, but I wanted to suggest Lou Neff Point - where Barton Creek meets Lady Bird Lake - as another possible vantage point. Here's 2 photos I took a couple of days ago from there. daytime view or nighttime view The nighttime view doesn't show the W's crane as much. What do you all think? LoneStarMike (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the pictures. Actually I like the photography a lot. Still, though, the actual composition of the image (i.e. the totality of what it captures) I still think is inferior to AustinWikiPic2. A shot that captures more of the downtown would be preferable. --Mcorazao (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • AustinWikiPic2 is a much nicer photograph. It provides a greater panorama of the entire skyline and therefore shows a greater selection of buildings. It also has the benefit of making the skyline look larger (which, to be honest, is what skyline photos should do). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwmiv (talk • contribs) 23:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion: I think it is clear that there is no concensus to change away from AustinWikiPic2, which has been the lead image for a long time. Additionally at the moment the majority of responders have expressed a preference for that image though obviously opinions are mixed. For the moment I'm switching back to that image but please feel free to discuss new images as they become available. --Mcorazao (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Try a montage of Austin. That might work...--99.58.60.128 (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Capitol

Why isn't there a picture of the capitol? I will never forget the first time I saw it glowing at night as I traveled south on the upper deck. I was awestuck at the view from up there. I was a tourist then, but am a resident now, and will never forget how amazing it looked from up there with the rest of the skyline from that view.147.26.185.101 (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

True, the article should have at least one snapshot of the capitol building. --Mcorazao (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Problem solved. In case you are wondering where the picture is, it is in the Government and Politics section, which happens to be the most reasonable place to put it. (Although it is starting to fill with a bunch of pictures.) TheAustinMan (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Population comparisons

There were recent edits regarding size comparisons in the demographics section. The comparisons had been removed under the summary "These comparisons are a stretch", which I am unsure how to interpret. My thoughts.

Personally I believe that although raw numbers are good to have, for the average person they mean very little as most people have not really studied urban populations and, as such, these numbers don't give them any intuitive feel on size. Quick comparisons to some cities that they may have heard of can give a better feel for what the numbers mean. I changed the examples a little to be a little more international in makeup (world view). All of these are within about 15% of Austin's population.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Austin Celebrities

Hey, I'm really liking the article and I think most things were covered well. But I think it would be a great addition to add a section about the celebrities that call Austin home, like Sandra Bullock, Andy Roddick, Mike Judge, Willie Nelson, etc... I know Lance was mentioned, which is good, but I think there should be a section that at least mentions which celebrities live here. I really think it would add more flavor to the article, and it's another thing we Austinites have to be proud of. Thanks for reading and considering this!

ILGB27 (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi ILGB27, I'm glad you liked the article. The problem with adding a "notable residents" section is that it would be hard to determine who should be included in the list. These sections tend to be vandal magnets and accumulate trivia, so the added "flavor" IMO would not be worth the trouble taken to create and maintain such a list. If you have any other suggestions, feel free to add them. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks like that section has been added. I would suggest that no one be on the list unless they have their own article page on Wikipedia. That makes for an easy criteria for who to include or not. Austex • Talk 02:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Quick Edit in References Section

I tried to edit a reference link which, when clicked went nowhere. It's for reference 123, "America's Most Literate Cities", the proper link is http://web.ccsu.edu/amlc06/AMLC07/Default.htm both are 2007 results. New to editing on wiki, so when I tried to edit it myself and couldn't, figured this be the next best way. --Caelestis Filius (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for the heads-up. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

References - leave in or take out?

Dear Austin Texas Editors: I have a definite COI conflict of interest re eight edits I made to the Austin article. I am the Author of a 2009 history book on Austin (called "Austin") by Arcadia Publishing, covering Austin history from the 1980's to the 1940's. As such I have a conflict in I myself using my own book as a citation. To avoid the conflict the references need to be examined by other editors/editor who would then independently decide whether to leave them in or not. With time I can replace them all with other references myself if needed but I thought I'd pursue this path instead. Having others independently decide is a common way to avoid a [COI] situation like this.
The edits in question are currently numbered as edits 25, 30, 32 and 34 - 39 (shown below). If you want to use them it is probably best to copy the original edit in the article text, remove it, and add it back under your User name so that it is clear that I am not citing mself. It's a bit cumbersome but this is the usual procedure for this kind of CIO issue. Thanks. I'd be glad to answer any questions at User talk:Austex Austex • Talk 18:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • ^ Martin, Don (2009). Austin, p. 31. Arcadia Publishing, Chicago, IL, ISBN 978-0-7385-7067-9
  • ^ Martin, Don (2009). Austin, p. 30. Arcadia Publishing, Chicago, IL, ISBN 978-0-7385-7067-9
  • ^ Martin, Don (2009). Austin, p. 84. Arcadia Publishing, Chicago, IL, ISBN 978-0-7385-7067-9
  • ^ Martin, Don (2009). Austin, p. 30. Arcadia Publishing, Chicago, IL, ISBN 978-0-7385-7067-9
  • ^ Martin, Don (2009). Austin, p. 107. Arcadia Publishing, Chicago, IL, ISBN 978-0-7385-7067-9
  • ^ Martin, Don (2009). Austin, p. 111. Arcadia Publishing, Chicago, IL, ISBN 978-0-7385-7067-9
  • ^ Martin, Don (2009). Austin, p. 112. Arcadia Publishing, Chicago, IL, ISBN 978-0-7385-7067-9

Austex • Talk 20:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If no one has respoonded yea or nay on these references within 10 days(July 24th) I will leave them in. However anyone may still object to them later if they wish and delete one or all of them. If so I'd appreciate a note on my talk page just leting me know. Thanks. Austex • Talk 23:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The additions pass the smell test for me. However, I would like another opinion. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
please keep the references. It's a pleasure to have a genuine expertron board at Wikipedia. I do not see any conflicts of interestr at all. Rjensen (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Look kosher to me. smjwalsh (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Seems fine; I suggest the next person who agrees removes the edit request; I don't think it is at all necessary; this talk-page discussion is all the evidence anyone will ever need, that due process has been followed. Chzz  ►  11:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Seems fine with me as well. Thanks for asking beforehand. ThemFromSpace 05:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks guys! (removed edit request) Austex • Talk 03:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Notice re COI Intent from Austex

(Below is a message I am posting HERE on this talk page for Austin, Texas article - posted July 14, 2010.)



NOTICE OF INTENT RE POTENTIAL COI ISSUES: I'm Austex an Austin editor on Wikipedia. Last year I wrote a book on Austin history by Arcadia Publishing telling the history of Austin from the 1890's to about 1940 using historic collectible postcards. The book reference and reviews are HERE. Another editor has suggested that I potentially have a conflict of interest WP:COI in editing the entire Austin, Texas article having written a book on Austin history. That seems to go a bit overboard for me. I certainly understand the obvious Conflict of Interest from using the book to edit the history section and especially from 1890-1940. But I just don't see a conflict in editing the other sections outside of the "History Section" -- such as sports, climate, government, geography, etc -- as many editors on Wikipedia do edit on the subjects and cities they know and are familiar with, or have researched.
However, as of July 14, 2010, in the spirit of WP:CIV civility and showing good faith WP:AFD and for avoiding a WP:COI issue through self-disclosure, I hereby give formal notice that I will not edit Austin, Texas history information between 1890 and 1940 (the time period of the book) and will only make edits to chapters and unaffiliated sections or general topics in the article. Furthermore I will strictly follow the COI guidelines involving my editing and will only make edits that are strictly nuetral in nature and for which I have no personal interest or POV. I have read the COI guidelines and will abide by them fully. Austex • Talk 01:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
If any editor has concerns please leave a message at my talk page HERE or send an email from my main page email userbox. (updated) Austex • Talk 01:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Austin and COI

Just wanted to comment on how impressed I am with your professionalism regarding your possible conflict of interest. Thank you, and as another editor said at Talk:Austin, Texas, it's great to have an expert around. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well...to be truthful I could not be deemed an expert by any stretch of the imagination! I have a ton to learn and am mostly learning through mistakes (usually a hard but valuable lesson. And I've learned the hard way the importance to disclose conflicts of interest and to avoid them. Thanks very much for you kind words, however. They mean a lot to me. Best wishes in your editing.... (PS - Looking at your user page I'd say YOU are far and away the expert here!).Austex • Talk 12:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Climate

The article's Sports section reads, "Natural features like the... generally mild climate...." "Generally mild?" Compared to the Libyan Desert or Afar Triangle, perhaps. It may be that my brain is still warped from Austin's summer of '93. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Not only is Austin's climate not mild, it is really not described very well in the article. For instance, the classification for the climate is listed, which is the same classification that Houston and New York City have. Anyone who has spent any time in Austin knows that the climate is nothing like the aforementioned cities, but is a combination of semi-tropical or semi-arid (depending on the day... sometimes even the hour). Jread79 (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Jafeluv (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Austin, Texas → Austin — "Austin" already redirects here. Why not just simply call the page "Austin" instead of "Austin, Texas"? Just like Detroit, Minneapolis, and Milwaukee don't include the name of the state because they're so well-known, so should Austin. It would greatly enhance our readers' Wikipedia experience by simplifying. --Krauseaj 00:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose - WP:PLACE calls for U.S. cities to be titled "City, State" unless the AP Stylebook says that a state disambiguator is not required. This is not the case with Austin. In addition, "Austin" can refer to a lot more than the Texas city. Dough4872 02:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose the disambiguation page Austin (disambiguation) should be moved to Austin instead, since "Austin" is a common personal given name. 184.144.164.115 (talk) 05:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:PLACE. There's no reason to make an exception to style in this case, and "Austin" is a lot more ambiguous than Detroit or Minneapolis. I'll note that this article is my #3 google hit for a search for "Austin," so it's not as though the city somehow loses out on any fame by being displayed as Austin, Texas. Besides, we do Phoenix, Arizona and "Phoenix" is ambiguous as well. Zachlipton (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONAME, WP:TITLE and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The city dominates the results when you google for "Austin" - so it's obviously the primary topic. If someone is looking for something other than the city by searching with "Austin", they are in a small minority. As to the U.S. city naming guideline, it's in dispute and apparently no longer has consensus support. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current name is fine and is consistent with the naming convention for US cities. I disapprove of this slew of page move proposals for city articles. The issues are the same in each one so there's no point in having fifty or three thousand separate discussions. Let's just settle this at WP:PLACE.   Will Beback  talk  09:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose As several others noted, the name "Austin, Texas" is how the current guidelines for U.S. cities say it should be listed. Those guidelines are currently under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names), but unless and until consensus is reached there to list cities such as Austin without the state, this move should not be made. In any case, please note that there is also a city named Austin, Minnesota. --MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Austin in not only the name of places (of which this is only one) but also people. I would support redirecting Austin to the disambiguation page from where this is linked at the top. ThemFromSpace 18:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support As long as the unqualified name redirects here already, why not just move it to the simpler name. Those who are saying that the Texas capital is not the primary topic should get consensus for moving "Austin (dismabiguation)" to the unqualified name instead. Then that would automatically make this current move request moot. As long as the unqualified name is occupied by an article, whether as the title or redirect, there is an implicit agreement that it is the primary topic. --Polaron | Talk 15:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the guideline. Why break something that is not broken? The guideline prevents endless wars over what is the primary use and provides a very predictable name which is something that is a good thing in an encylopedia. When article names appear to use random formatting, it confuses readers. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the guideline, which was well reasoned out. Avoid seemingly random formatting like Vegaswikian says, among other reasons. --Doncram (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Mild Support. So long as the redirect goes here, I see no particular reason not to have the article here, but this is a weaker case than many because there are many other common uses for "Austin". john k (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose and frankly, I'm not 100% convince Austin, TX is overwhelming the primary topic. AgneCheese/Wine 00:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • oppose another pointy change that has no good reason for a change to be made. We have standards for simplicity and to avoid such endless pointless discussions as shown here for each US city. Hmains (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - no good reason for this move, and plenty of good reasons to follow the convention. Jonathunder (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose; there is no consensus to overturn the long-standing precedent. Powers T 20:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Either all U.S. cities move to the city, state format or we change the format to the simpler name of the primary topic. Jread79 (talk) 09:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Austin, Texas, is pretty obviously not the primary topic here. Say Austin in the UK and most people think of cars. In fact, I'd say 90% of the UK population don't even know that Austin, Texas, exists, and I suspect that's also true of other English-speaking countries. Deb (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Toplessness

The first entry under "Arts and Culture" is about the legal status of topless women in public. I was going to move this somewhere else, but it dawned on me that I have no idea where it should go. I guess I also question the point of it being in the article, especially without a source. Is there a better subsection under A and C where it belongs? Doctorambient (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Austin map

The map in the Georgraphy section is hard to read and is really, really OLD. Looking at the map at a higher magnification reveals that the town of Round Rock is not even included as a suburb, for example. Hopefully someone can replace this map. Austex • Talk 03:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sneaky edit

Carl Fern is not the king...see after the first sentance. it needs to be removed, but i don't see it when i go into edit it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.23.68.40 (talk) 02:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Did someone delete a bunch of nicknames?

I swear that it used to include the "Violet Crown" one and some others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Null Space 0 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Austin American Statesman Skyline.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Austin American Statesman Skyline.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No flag?

This is the largest city in USA to not have a flag in its article. So, I was wondering if it has a flag, and after googling found it sure has. For example, "NAVA - AMERICAN CITY FLAGS SURVEY" has it as #62 in their 150 city flag survey. Is there a reason why it is not there? Anyone haven't had the time to draw it for wikipedia? 85.217.39.33 (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... No action or comment regarding this. Strange indeed. 82.141.93.158 (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Or is there some odd Texas law forbidding using flags in encyclopedias? 85.217.15.248 (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Climate section needs some help

Can we remove the sentence "About every two years or so, Austin experiences an ice storm that freezes roads over and affects much of the city for 24 to 48 hours.[3]"

Living in Austin for a very long time (30+ years), an ice storm has occurred a several times over the past decade, but I cannot remember, or find any evidence of ice storms "About every two years." I looked the citation up on the wayback machine here and find no evidence of ice storms mentioned at all. The climate summary at NOAA does not mention ice a single time. My google-fu cant find a single resource even listing the number or dates of ice storms in Austin, which if they occurred frequently I would expect to find.

I also think we need to change the precipitation sentence -

From: "On average, Austin receives 33.6 inches (853.4 mm) of rain per year, with most of the precipitation in the spring, and a secondary maximum in the fall"

To: "On average, Austin receives 33.6 inches (853.4 mm) of rain per year, with the precipitation fairly evenly distributed throughout the year and the heaviest amounts occurring in May and September.[4]"

Hilltoppa101 (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

In August 2011 Austin a new august record high temperature was set on august 28th at 112 degrees. I dont know how to edit the page to change the climate chart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.108.208 (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.austincityguide.com/content/congress-bridge-bats-austin.asp
  2. ^ http://www.austin.com/content/view/754/354/
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference aboutweather was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ "AUSTIN CLIMATE SUMMARY" (PDF). NOAA. Retrieved 15 August 2012.

What picture is needed?

I'd say that the article could use a picture of the capitol building. Auchansa (talk) 05:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Introduction

Hi there,

Does anyone else thing the introduction is a tad too long here? I think the violet crown part is great, but it's not exactly necessary. If nobody objects I would like to weigh in. Thanks. A. Ward (talk) 05:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that the Violet Crown bit is okay for the intro, but I would advise the "clean air" sentence at the end to go. It's not really a distinguishing or identifying feature of the city. AdamColligan (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Are mayors relevant to Austin history?

User Dicklyon deleted names of several mayors from the Timeline of Austin, Texas, claiming they lack historical signficance. I disagree; mayors are part of Austin's history. What do others think? Do mayors belong in the timeline of Austin history or not? -- M2545 (talk) 06:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Mayors that would be relevant in a timeline might include the first one, and mayors known for something other than being mayor of Austin. Lacking any such reasons to be included, they are insignificant to the article; including a random selection of them is just a distraction. Of course, they can be found in the list of mayors article, for those who need the complete list. Dicklyon (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Austin and it's Suburbs: A great Place for Recent Retirees

My family and I are planning to retire to the Austin area within the next two years. We've gotten lots of input from coworkers considering the same. I think The article should address the needs and wants of young retirees (early 60's, particularly recent retirees) as to what areas around Austin would be good places to settle down, what are taxes like, crime, cost of living, and other issues of interest. I think this would attract many good people to the area. And I'm still researching answers to those very issues myself.

I also think that there should be a section addressing Second Amendment Rights. Are guns and concealed carry permits allowed/encouraged in Texas? What are some of the laws governing gun ownership? What are some of the pros and cons of gun ownership in the state? Are there many shooting ranges or areas where one can go to hunt and shoot?Sempergumby007 (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a how to guide, nor is it a relocation tool. I think your best bet would be to contact the Chamber of Commerce. There should be a link for them in the article. Most c of c's have a person whose job it is to help potential relocations. John from Idegon (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Rename/Move to "Austin"

"Austin" redirects here anyway, I don't see why the page shouldn't just be moved to that. This city is by far the most notable subject reffered to as "austin". CarnivorousBunnytalk 02:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No. See WP:USPLACE. John from Idegon (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Redirect breaks stylebook and sets precedent

How can the redirect be justified if it breaks the AP stylebook conventions? Other cities may attempt to do the same. --Buffaboy (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Austin, Texas

What is missing from the city timeline? Please add relevant content. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 11:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Mysterious comments such as this do not help at all and are considered disruptive. If you have a specific issue, by all means, say what it is. Or better yet, just fix it! After all, this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. John from Idegon (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
"Disruption" not intended. I compiled the timeline article in 2014 and seek additional contributors. Thanks. -- M2545 (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Public transport

car2go is far the first company installing such a service in western hemishphere. The really first and inventor still exists and is www.mobility.ch, since 23 years in service with more then 100'000 active and paying customers. The concept was introduced first in Lucerne and now running all over in central Europe. --Cosy-ch (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 17 external links on Austin, Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Austin, Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Repeated edits to population figures

In the past two days IP:69.87.112.1 has made a series of unsourced changes to population statistics here, at Travis County, Texas, and at List of Texas metropolitan areas. The changes to Austin and Travis County's figures are implausible (doubled in one year?!), and none of the changes have included citations. Now, today the numbers are again being changed without sources by User:Jackosn7775, along with similarly unsourced statistics changes at List of tallest buildings in Jacksonville, List of United States cities by population, Milwaukee, and List of municipalities in Wisconsin by population. I'm going to revert this second change. @Jackosn7775: if you have a source for these figures, that would be an excellent contribution to this topic; otherwise, please stop altering the statistics. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I hate to ask, and I'd take the word of anyone who's been there and around without demanding a source (I don't even know where you'd find one), but is /ˈɑːstɨn/ actually an appropriate phonemic transcription of the name? That first phoneme, /ɑː/ is the "ah" sound like in "father", "car", and in most US English, "box", while the first phoneme in the other option, /ɒ:/, varies in US English from this "ah" sound to the "aw" in "law" and "bought" in dialects without the cot-caught merger, depending on the lot-cloth split. I've only ever heard "Austin" pronounced by speakers without "cot" and "caught" merged the second way ("aw-stin", not "ah-stin"). In other words, while [ˈɑːstɨn] surely is how some people pronounce it, it seems redundant because that's already implied by the diaphonemic notation of the second pronunciation. Can anyone knowledgeable about linguistics fill me in here? Tezero (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The pronunciation is certainly the vowel from "law" and "caught" (note the au), rather than the one from "box"; I don't know the IPA well enough to comment on the proper symbol, but that's the sound it should indicate. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Nice update, thanks J. 'mach' wust! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hispanic or Latino Demographics

Why are the Hispanic or Latino demographics listed separate from the rest of the races? All the demographics are from the same source.

The following is from the Demographics section on 05:20, 15 February 2011:


According to the 2006-2008 American Community Survey, the racial composition of Austin is:

Single Race: 97.7%

Two or More Races: 2.3%

According to the same survey, the ethnic composition of Austin is:

US government practice is that Hispanic or Latino are considered ethnicities, not races. It is a pretty loose system, but race is more associated with genetic background while ethnicities are grouped by social behavior. (In this case, cultural norms of Spanish-speaking communities.) So under this system a white hispanic isn't considered multi-racial, but rather white with a hispanic ethnicity. But Americans commonly use Hispanic or Latino to identify individuals of Spanish or Latin american ancestry regardless of culture. So the government's statistical methods don't really line up with common usage. The article already explicitly calls out the government source of the statistics, so I'm not sure how this could be improved to make the dichotomy clear. Macknik (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ American FactFinder, United States Census Bureau. "Austin city, Texas - ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2006-2008". Factfinder.census.gov. Retrieved 2010-07-01.

Census

Is the census figure correct? I've looked onto the US Census Bureau website, and it says that the population estimate as of July 1 2015, is 931,830, which is the exact same figure listed in this page, but said as of June 1 2016. Also, source 1 leads to a broken page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stopitnowok (talk • contribs) 10:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Remove incomplete tag

Under City Government there is a tag that says the section is incomplete. It has been there for close to a year. This tag is only a disturbance to the reader. Therefore it should be removed. This so-called incompleteness cannot be said to be a fault of the article. There are myriads of facts (probably thsousands of millions) that could be added to Wikipedia. No argument is provided for the view that these facts (description hidden in the source code) are more important than the other facts. But there is an implicit argument for that they are not: Despite the presence of the tag, no-one has added these facts. Even the belief of the persons who have added the tag (at least three) is dubious. The fact that they have not added these facts shows that they do not think that this is the most important work to do on Wikipedia. They are of course free to choose their tasks for themselves. They should also respect that the other editors do the same. This ugly tag would be worth its while if it worked so that the facts were added within a month or so. Evidently it has not worked in this way. --Ettrig (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Austin, Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Austin, Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Austin, Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Austin, Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Austin, Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 20 July 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Support !voters make some compelling points, and at some point consensus may indeed shift that we should do away with preemptive state names, but we're clearly not at that point yet. Cúchullain t/c 14:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


Austin, Texas → Austin – Time to test the waters here. This move request was last proposed in December 2010, almost 7 years ago. (See Talk:Austin, Texas/Archive 2#Requested move.) For over 7 years, Austin has targeted Austin, Texas as a redirect. There are several articles on Wikipedia where the articles' titles only contain the name of the city without the state or country including London, Seattle, Madrid, Atlanta, Dallas ... etc. Argument to perform this move is per WP:PRECISE since the ", Texas" in the article's current title is a disambiguator without the parentheses, and is thus unnecessary disambiguation in the title since Austin is currently set up as a primary topic redirect towards Austin, Texas. However, the argument back in 2010/2011 to not perform this move was WP:NCPLACE. Which guidelines hold stronger weight in deciding the name of this article? Steel1943 (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • I oppose this move and support the status quo. WP:USPLACE says that the current guideline for US city article titles is to leave off the state if and only if the AP Stylebook recommends the same, and Austin is not currently on the AP's list. I actually think that *that* should change(!), but using the AP's stylebook at least gives a concrete and independent criterion for determining which cities merit first-name-only treatment in Wikipedia. For now, I think Austin pretty nicely fits the situation described at WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT and should be redirected from Austin, just as it currently is. If someone wants to submit a formal complaint to the AP, though, I'm all for that!-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not being lazy here, but the !vote above directly reflects my feeling. Austin should be on the AP list, but the AP list is our standard. John from Idegon (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. right or wrong AP list is our standard. The moment we move from it 100s of editing hours will be wasted. Plus, a British reader seeing Austin without Texas will I guarantee think of the car. Simply because, double-barrelling the state name is normal. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:USPLACE, which provides a consistent and predictable naming guideline for US cities. kennethaw88 • talk 03:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Clearly the most WP:COMMONNAME for this topic is "Austin" and this topic is obviously the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Austin". WP:USPLACE is a lame excuse for an exception to contradict longstanding consistent naming practices for cities from all other countries, and even some cities (on the AP list) in the US. No, "Austin, Texas" is NOT the name of this subject. It's "Austin", and it's irresponsible for us to suggest otherwise as we do with the current unnecessarily disambiguated title. --В²C ☎ 03:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
"Irresponsible"? Absurd. It's well-established that the current title is appropriate for this United States city article per WP:USPLACE, for all the various reasons given in past discussions. "Austin, Texas" is indeed the name of this subject. Omnedon (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – no reason at this time to consider overturning the longstanding consensus at WP:USPLACE for a special case that would open the floodgates for argument over every city name. Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I see no reason given in the rationale to consider overturning WP:USPLACE. Omnedon (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Move Austin (disambiguation) to Austin. The name means many other places and many other things, including to people outside the USA, and well over 100 people listed in Austin (name). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. USPLACE is the well-established guideline for such articles. Also please note that "testing the waters" on a perennial proposal is supposed to start first at the Village Pump, but the nom seems to have skipped this. Recommend immediate closure. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Except for the point at the US city name perennial proposal notice that states "Twenty-nine significant US cities are exempted from the convention per AP style." (the subject of this article is not on the AP exception list), none of the other points there seem to apply to the topic of this article. Many sources refer to this city simply as "Austin", thus essentially invalidating the rest of the points in that section. (In addition to the previous move request happening almost 7 years ago, no wonder I would have never considered this to fall under "perennial proposal" scrutiny.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as unnecessary disambiguation. If this article is the primary topic, as Austin redirecting here shows, then it should be at that title. Pppery 15:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
This is addressed at WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT: it is standard practice to redirect a term to the article about the primary topic associated with that term "when [the article] is titled differently according to the naming conventions." The existing article naming conventions require that the article be titled Austin, Texas.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Required??? I call WP:IAR! And please don't try to argue the rule has to be changed first. --В²C ☎ 18:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC) --В²C ☎ 18:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The guideline is in place, well-defined, clearly stated and consistently applied, with good reasons behind it -- reasons which have been discussed extensively and backed up with data. Linking to your own FAQ here has no bearing on this. Attempting to rename a single article and make an exception to the rule looks like an attempt to undermine the guideline with an end-run. Omnedon (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Not consistently, Phoenix is the only Wikipedia exception from the AP list (and rightfully so). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Denver, Honolulu, Atlanta, Indianapolis, Boston, Oklahoma City, and Salt Lake City are all listed in the AP Stylebook's list of American cities that do not require a disambiguating state; as has now been repeatedly pointed out, that is the established guideline for determining whether or not to include a state after the name of a city in the title of an article in English Wikipedia. Again, I personally think the AP is wrong and should add Austin to their list for the reasons you enumerate, but the status quo is in keeping with our established style guidelines.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. USPLACE is a mess of a guideline that should not be over-elevated for ridiculous excess disambiguation. This is clearly a primary topic. Timrollpickering 18:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Please see my above reply re: WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The city already is the primary topic for the term "Austin". As for COMMONNAME, it supports adding the state (as many previous USPLACE discussions have made clear, and as WP:PERENNIAL notes). For instance, Google "Austin" and observe the results: "city, state" is very common. In fact, here are the top 10 results for the city with instances of "city, state" highlighted:
  • Austin, TX | Explore Hotels, Music, Restaurants, and Things to Do (https://www.austintexas.org/). "Austin, Texas is the Live Music Capital of the World…and so much more. Explore our city's hotels, things to do, restaurant scene, and exciting events."
  • Austin Tourism | Visitor Information | Culture, Things to Do, Food (https://www.austintexas.org/visit/). "Visit Austin, Texas to discover what makes ours one of the most exciting destinations around. Find information on our culture and other travel topics."
  • Austin, TX | Austin Hotels, Events, Attractions, Things To Do & More (https://www.austintexas.org/about-acvb/): "Visit Austin has the best job in town. We're here to promote all of the things in Austin that people are already talking about. This city has a one-of-a-kind culture ..."
  • Living & Working in Austin, TX (http://realestate.usnews.com/places/texas/austin): "About 50 people move to Austin every day, drawn to the Texas capital's music, outdoor spaces and cultural institutions. Austin was established along the..."
  • Everything Austin, Texas - Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/Austin/): "MEETING AUSTINITES. Wanna meet some Austinites and make some friends? Check out: /r/austin on meetup.com or /r/atx4atx."
  • The Austin Chronicle (https://www.austinchronicle.com/): "The Austin Chronicle is an independent, locally owned and operated alternative newsweekly that reflects the heart and soul of Austin, Texas."
  • Things to do in Austin, Texas (https://www.facebook.com/places/Things-to-do-in-Austin-Texas/106224666074625/): "Discover Austin, Texas with the help of your friends. Search for restaurants, hotels, museums and more."
  • Austin.com | The Best Of Austin, Texas (https://austin.com/): "Looking for Austin music, Austin restaurants, Austin hotels, things to do in Austin, and more? Austin.com is your #1 source for the best of Austin, Texas!"
  • Austin Business News (https://www.bizjournals.com/austin): "Austin, TX News - View Daily Local Business News, Resources & more in Austin, Texas."
  • The Top 10 Things to Do in Austin 2017 - Must See Attractions in Austin, TX | TripAdvisor (https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attractions-g30196-Activities-Austin_Texas.html): "Book your tickets online for the top things to do in Austin, Texas on TripAdvisor: See 50764 traveler reviews and photos of Austin tourist attractions. Find what to ..."
We can of course look elsewhere too: Facebook, Twitter, the Associated Press, Reuters, etc.; it's pretty clear that on first mention, the city is commonly identified as "Austin, Texas". The commonness of the city, state form is one of the (many) reasons that USPLACE has long been our accepted convention, so absent any unique, compelling reasons to exempt this particular Texas city, it should follow the guideline. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Consensus suggestion, to add language on WP:USPLACE citing 'Austin' as an exception to the guideline. This one does seem to have merit, and has been the redirect for seven years (which actually solves this problem by itself), and most editors seem to affirm that it is the primary but can't be moved because of the AP logjam. Or just a WP:COMMONSENSE close, which, in my reading of closings, is something that is much lacking and not used as much as it should be (or ever?). Randy Kryn (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
    • If the move succeeds then it would be appropriate to mention it in the guideline. That's how the AP exceptions got added. First they were moved, then the guideline was updated. Remember: guidelines reflect consensus as reflected in editor decisions. WP works bottom-up, not top-down. We don't decide what the rules are and then follow them. We write the rules that everyone is generally following, and update them as appropriate. --В²C ☎ 20:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Randy: USPLACE already has a set group of exceptions, as defined by the Associated Press. It's not a "logjam" but a successful compromise that's allowed consistent naming for the overwhelming majority of US place articles while exempting the most notable few that can go sans state. The real logjam would occur if we start piecemeal exemptions of other cities (on subjective grounds such as whether they host a music festival?), opening the door for practically any city to claim the same, undercutting consistency, predictability, and stability. Not a desirable path. ╠╣uw [talk] 00:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Just trying for a real consensus (100% or close to it). I wasn't suggesting many exceptions, just this one, and said nothing about a music festival. The AP's 30 exceptions are logical, except for Phoenix (where Wikipedia gets it right by not following AP's list) but they may have missed this one, which shouldn't bind Wikipedia editors hands. Not really that big of a deal, as 'Austin' is a long-time redirect to the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
        • But one exception would almost certainly lead to many, even if that's not the intention, and particularly if its made on subjective grounds (like the presence of SXSW, which another editor introduced as justification above). For whatever reason, the AP doesn't include Austin, and it's worked very well for us to just use the line drawn by a reliable third party.
          Also, as regards Phoenix, Arizona, it's not that anyone decided the AP was illogical, just that Phoenix (and Washington) aren't primary topics at Wikipedia for their unappended names, a requirement noted in the guideline. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
          • I would go so far as to suggest a general provision to the guidelines that state capitols that are the primary topic of the title should be at unadorned titles. It is equally preposterous that Tallahassee is at Tallahassee, Florida. I would argue that an additional basis for this distinction is that these capitols are broadly referred to as the source of state laws and policies. bd2412 T 15:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
            • But the majority of state capitols aren't primary, and it doesn't seem clear or useful to introduce a capitols exemption when most capitols would have to be exempted from the exemption. (The high frequency of repeated or otherwise ambiguous placenames in the US is one of the many reasons we keep USPLACE.) ╠╣uw [talk] 17:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
            • @BD2412 (and Huwmanbeing too I suppose since they didn't notice it either): Sorry to be a grammar stickler here, but this was bothering me: Don't you actually mean "state capitals"? Steel1943 (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
              • Yes, yes I do. bd2412 T 20:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
            • While I happen to be American, we need to avoid US-centric reasoning. If there were an exception for US state capitals, it should also apply to capitals of state-equivalent regions in other countries. I am sure that most of us have never heard of most of those cities. I doubt there would be much support for moving those cities to unadorned titles. Using city-comma-place in the encyclopedia is a useful convention. If I were forced to chose between more unadorned cities or less, I would lean in the direction of letting Los Angeles redirect to Los Angeles, California for consistency. Alsee (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose, because I wouldn't be mad if this actually went through. I don't like USPLACE at all, but my stance is that it should be overhauled as a whole, not on a case-by-case basis like this. (And just for the record, I strongly oppose the suggestion above by Anthony Appleyard that this article is not the primary topic for Austin.) Nohomersryan (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:USPLACE is an excellent guideline for avoiding wasting time on countless page-move discussions like this. And per that guideline, the AP Stylebook provides an excellent standard for exceptions that don't require a city-comma-state style. The Associated Press have exceptional expertise in which place names have exceptional international recognition. Editors who live near a given city, or are exceptionally familiar with a city, or who live in the U.S., may easily misjudge the international recognition of a city name. Austin Texas may be the Primary Topic for the many Austins that exist, but it doesn't approach a Paris, Rome, New York City, or Los Angeles. Alsee (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Actually, USPLACE, due to its inconsistency with how we title other articles including most articles about cities, is the cause of time wasting on countless page-move discussions like this. If we just allowed US cities to use the base name of the city as its title in those cases where the base name is the unique or primary use of that city, then there would be nothing to debate. There is no debate about whether this city is the primary topic for Austin - Austin redirects here because it is the primary topic, per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. But that's okay. Let's cling on to the silly convention for another decade. Sooner or later sanity and reason will prevail, and only then will the time wasting end. See also: Talk:Yogurt/yogurtspellinghistory--В²C ☎ 22:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Actually the waste of time stems from move requests made in contradiction of a clear, existing guideline, and the resulting discussions in which the same discussion points are brought up over and over. Omnedon (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
        • When the guideline is itself in contradiction to how other articles are titled (nowithstanding rationalizations to the contrary), such move requests are inevitable. The only way to resolve it is to bring the guideline in line with standard practices. Besides this outlier guideline, there is no good reason to include ", Texas" in the title of this article which is indisputably the primary topic for "Austin" and for which "Austin" is the most concise common name. As long as the outlier guideline remains the only basis for retaining such titles, move requests like this one will continue to be made. For years I shared similar observations about the title at was then Yoghurt. The debates continued and wasted time over and over until, as I predicted for years, the whole issue was resolved with the rename to Yogurt. So what do you want more? Stable undisputed titles, or titles that suit your fancy? Because in this case, if you favor titles that include the state even when the city is the primary topic for the name of the city, you can't have both. --В²C ☎ 17:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
      • B2C: Countless page-move discussions? I count only about two instances in the last two years of proposals to drop the state from a US place article's title — and I'm including this one. That's pretty rare, particularly when you consider that USPLACE (unlike the hoary Yogurt) applies to the titling of literally tens of thousands of articles. If only all areas of Wikipedia were so stable. :) ╠╣uw [talk] 18:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
        • B2C, the guideline itself is not the basis for retaining these titles. The basis is formed by the many good reasons often given; the guideline simply defines the practice. Despite inevitable disagreement (as with anything on Wikipedia), there has been no consensus to overturn the practice because it has such a strong basis. Your "yogurt" example has nothing to do with this situation; that was a single article, whereas this is a large set of articles. You know the reasons; you've been involved in the discussions. Omnedon (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
          • Life is like a box of chocolates is a famous analogy, and it's valid. The Yogurt and USPLACE title controversies are far more similar than life and chocolate boxes, so noting they are not exactly the same does not make it an invalid analogy. The similarity is there are "keep" and "change" sides, and if the "change" side prevails there will be no strong policy based reason to ever go back; it will settle the controversy. I pointed this out at Yogurt for years and was repeatedly denigrated for it. But I was right. I'm right here too. Anyone truly in favor of stability and consistency in our title policies would see this. Anyone who values more information in our titles even if it's not necessary for disambiguation than having stability and consistency in our title policies is going to argue and rationalize. This discussion is replete with examples of that view. --В²C ☎ 15:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I'd rather support a proposal at WP:USPLACE, it seems to me that Nashville has an even stronger case to be moved by the same logic. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
    • A guideline change would have a better chance of gaining support if there are a few cases to base it on. --В²C ☎ 00:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Austin, Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Not the only important Austin in the world

I strongly disagree that a search for "Austin" leads to this, one of the cities called Austin in the US. There are many people and things called Austin in the world and a the primary lead should be to the disambiguation page, not one city in the US Brunswicknic (talk) 07:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Identifying the primary topic associated with a particular name is, of course, more an art than a science; I personally feel that the city of Austin, Texas is the primary topic that the large majority of readers would first associate with that name, and thus I support the status quo. As one piece of evidence, I'll point out that the first 120 results on a Google search I just ran for "Austin" all referred to Austin, Texas; I had to go seven pages in to find a result that used the name in another way. This strongly supports the supposition that, at a minimum, people who search for things on Google under the name "Austin" are overwhelmingly thinking of the city of Austin, Texas.
I also see that, compared with Austin, Texas's population of around a million, the largest other "Austin" is Austin, Minnesota, with around 25,000 people, making Austin, Texas the most populous Austin by a factor of roughly forty. Is there a particular alternate topic that you think a large portion of people would first think of on hearing the name "Austin"?-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps the wrestler, the sports car or the namesake of Austin TX. However I agree fully with Bryan that the title is currently correct. John from Idegon (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Firstly you are aware that Google uses geography in its algorithms, if you are in the US, then US results come up more, if you are in Britain then British etc. So, if you're google search is in the US then it is no surprise that the Texan city comes up. Secondly, I will remind you that the US dominates the internet, so there is never any surprise when US things come first in any search. Lastly I would argue that the name Austin was around long before the city achieved it's current position, that for people outside the US it is not the first thing they thing of when hearing the name. While I recognise Wikipedia was started in the US, the US is not the only place in the world, US topics should not automatically trump other topics. I admit, when I think of Austin, and what I was looking for, were the English cars. I do believe that for the people called Austin, to be told that first of all their name refers to the US city is not acknowledging their long family history. I strongly believe a disambiguation page should be the first page that comes up when "Austin" is searched for in Wikipedia. Thank you for the discussion, may such, and your works in wikipedia, continue. Brunswicknic (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
PS Bryan I note that you are from Texas, perhaps you were googling in Texas, considering the dominance of the city in your search I suspect so. When I google Austin, the Hospital and Health organisation in Melbourne is what comes up... Brunswicknic (talk) 11:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Interesting! Well, then clearly it's difficult for any one of us to achieve a clear sense of what would first come to mind to people around the world upon hearing a particular name! Using a method I found on Google to do a search without local geographical bias (but still based in the USA), I still get nothing but Austin, Texas for the first forty-five results, but I'm not sure how to do a truly "global" search. Following another idea I got from WP:PTOPIC, here is a chart showing how busy three of the alternate topics proposed have been recently; Austin, Texas far outweighs the other candidates in pageviews, though that doesn't necessarily mean that people are expecting to get there when they type "Austin". I continue to feel that Austin, Texas is the primary topic of that name, but I'm open to further arguments!-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I feel that while Austin, TX may not be what people first think of, since it shows up as "Austin, TX" from google, it is as simple as typing "car" afterwards to get what you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.65.183 (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Austin, Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Austin, Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sentence puffery

The third paragraph of the lede has this sentence, about residents of Austin: "They include a diverse mix of government employees, college students, musicians, high tech workers and blue collar workers." This sentence could also apply to every other city and medium sized town in North America.Decembermonday (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Whereas I agree the sentence doesn't add much, your premise is not accurate. Only college towns have significant numbers of students, only centers of government, such as state capitals, have significant numbers of goverment workers, only centers of the tech industry have significant numbers of tech workers, and only three or four cities in the entire country have significant numbers of musicians. John from Idegon (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Startup scene

Austin is now the #1 city in the US for startups - What about adding a subtopic on the article page about this? San Francisco does have one. 136.62.26.71 (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move V2

At this point Austin is the 11th most populous city in America, and in line with most other large U.S. cities, I propose that "Austin, Texas" should be moved to "Austin". For justification, see the article for "Denver", a much smaller city with a surname-originated name. PerhapsXarb (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Please see the lengthy move discussion archived above. For reference, my previous reply: "WP:USPLACE says that the current guideline for US city article titles is to leave off the state if and only if the AP Stylebook recommends the same, and Austin is not currently on the AP's list. I actually think that *that* should change(!), but using the AP's stylebook at least gives a concrete and independent criterion for determining which cities merit first-name-only treatment in Wikipedia. For now, I think Austin pretty nicely fits the situation described at WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT and should be redirected from Austin, just as it currently is."-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 03:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

POV lede

The fourth paragraph of the lede, with so-called rankings, is POV and recentist. I think it should be trimmed.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Update to the Old Austin section

I think that this page includes a lot of great information about different aspects of Austin. However, I do think that there needs to be more detail on the recent gentrification and enormous population growth. It mentions the growth and that it is displeasing to some locals, but I think there should be more detail on the consequences and how economically harmful it is to the next generation of people. Sachi Paul (talk) 03:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Austin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Austin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Austin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 05:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Clarification

In this edit I meant that "removed per WP:PRON" is a bad reason to remove it, not that WP:PRON (actually MOS:LEADPRON) doesn't apply to this article. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

City flag

Someone removed the city flag from the infobox, saying that the city does not have an official flag. It would appear that Austin did have a flag as recently as 2017.[1][2] Are there any objections to relying on these sources to support adding the flag back in the infobox? - Donald Albury 02:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it should be there. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lomax, John Nova (June 11, 2015). "Texas City Flags: The good, the blah, and the fugly". Texas Monthly. Retrieved December 11, 2019.
  2. ^ Rusty (November 16, 2017). "The City Flag of Austin". Austin Public Library. Retrieved December 11, 2019.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Unreadable text and image causing side scrolling

The chart below is not viable to many of our readers as per MOS:CONTRAST - Wikipedia:Colour contrast-...we also have one image "Panorama of Austin skyline" that in its current format causes the whole article to have the side scroll option...iys is better to have the scroll option in the image its self over the whole page and is why we have {{wide image}}-Moxy 🍁 15:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the way the image is currently is better, (not so in your face) type of picture. the way it was before here is way too large for the article. ~mitch~ (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@Mitchellhobbs: Odd it's much bigger to me now causing the whole article to need side-scroll.... I think this is why the wide template is usually implemented.... different people see different things according to the browser and on mobile view. As of now the whole article is squished--Moxy 🍁 16:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @Moxy:, I don't see how it is bigger now than it was before ~ I use chrome at my desktop and don't edit off my mobile ~ The current image is about 1/2 the size it was before and I don't see a scroll issue, maybe you can tell me what is scrolling in the article. ~mitch~ (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Also I agree with you on the contrast on the chart it should be changed ` any suggestions~? ~mitch~ (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@Moxy: I guess @GenQuest: made the decision for us ~ don't worry about me keeping Austin, Texas on my watch list ~ (I only lived here off and on for 48 years) still nice to meet you two ~ Regards ~mitch~ (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Mayor Steve Adler (D)

District Name Party (officially nonpartisan) References
1 Natasha Harper-Madison Democratic [1]
2 Delia Garza Democratic [2]
3 Sabino “Pio” Renteria Democratic [3]
4 Greg Casar Democratic [4]
5 Ann Kitchen Democratic [5]
6 Jimmy Flannigan Democratic [6]
7 Leslie Pool Democratic [7]
8 Paige Ellis Democratic [8]
9 Kathie Tovo Democratic [9]
10 Alison Alter Democratic [10]

References

  1. ^ "Our Campaigns - Candidate - Natasha Harper-Madison". www.ourcampaigns.com. Retrieved 22 November 2019.
  2. ^ "Delia Garza". Ballotpedia. Retrieved 22 November 2019.
  3. ^ Gibson, Lay J; Renteria, Alfonso Corona (11 July 2019). [Sabino “Pio” Renteria "The U.S. and Mexico: Borderland Development and the National Economies"]. doi:10.4324/9780429315503. Retrieved 22 November 2019. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
  4. ^ "Gregorio Casar". Ballotpedia. Retrieved 22 November 2019.
  5. ^ Smith, Amy. "Kitchen's District Changes Flavor". www.austinchronicle.com. Retrieved 22 November 2019.
  6. ^ "James Flannigan". Ballotpedia. Retrieved 22 November 2019.
  7. ^ "Leslie Pool". Ballotpedia. Retrieved 22 November 2019.
  8. ^ "Paige Ellis represents sharp political shift for Southwest Austin's District 8". Austin Monitor. 28 December 2018. Retrieved 22 November 2019.
  9. ^ "Randi Shade Donor History Vastly More Democratic Than Kathie Tovo". Burnt Orange Report. 30 May 2011. Retrieved 22 November 2019.
  10. ^ "Alison Alter". Ballotpedia. Retrieved 22 November 2019.

British English pronunciation listed first?

Am I the only one who finds it odd that not just one, but two UK pronunciations come before the American English pronunciation, for an American city? Is there a valid reason for this ordering?

Even if a British editor originally placed it that way, I think it seems logical to rearrange it so that the "local" variety of English comes first. 1980fast (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the local pronunciation should come first. I've changed it over, since we are encouraged to be bold. - QuadColour (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Liberal enclave

Since most Texas cities, with a few notable exceptions, are liberal, is it still fair to label Austin a liberal enclave in Texas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.6.166.186 (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

That is an interesting argument. I looked at this article from 2016: https://www.texastribune.org/2016/11/11/analysis-blue-dots-texas-red-political-sea. I see Austin is blue but also Dallas, San Antonio, Houston, El Paso and Laredo. I am sure there are maps for 2020 but I do not suspect the situation to be extremely different. To my surprise, I think you have a point.
ICE77 (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Questions and comments

1. "0.8% of Americans nationwide claimed affiliation with the Islamic faith."

What is the relevance to this article?

2. What are "Austin's VC numbers"? It should be clear to an average reader.

3. "The Austin Symphony Orchestra performs a range of classical, pop and family performances and is led by Music Director and Conductor Peter Bay."

Does the name of the director/conductor really need to be listed? No.

4. "Austin also has many odd statues and landmarks, such as the Stevie Ray Vaughan statue".

If the statue of SRV is "odd" then the statement above is "stupid".

5. The "Austin area professional sports teams" table should start from 1972 and finish with 2019.

6. "The team left after the 2015 season."

Why?

7. "Precourt negotiated an agreement with the City of Austin to build a $200 million privately funded stadium on public land at 10414 McKalla Place".

Is the exact address necessary? No.

8. What exactly is the "Trail's private steward"? It should be clear to an average reader.

9. "As of 2018, all six of Austin's state legislative districts are held by Democrats."

Six out of ...?

ICE77 (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

On question #3 ~ since Peter Bay is notable, I think his name should stay. ~mitch~ (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
On question #7 ~ I don't think the exact address is necessary. ~mitch~ (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
On question #4 ~ I do find that statement odd. ~mitch~ (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
On question #8 ~ a trail's steward, trail steward. ~mitch~ (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

3. He may be locally know but not nationally/internationally.

8. I see: trail enthusiasts. I never heard of such an expression.

ICE77 (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Austin,_Texas/Archive_2&oldid=1141043362"