Jump to content

Talk:Dallas/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Untitled

Wondering how to edit this City Entry?
WikiProject U.S. states might help.

One point that this entry doesn't cover that might be worth adding - what's of interest to the visitor to Dallas? I've got a cxvcxvcxvcxvcxvzvxczvxccxvcxvvcxvcvxcxvcxvcxvcvvcvcxv

Go check out the Sixth Floor Museum (the old School Book Depository building) in downtown Dallas for exhibts on the JKF acvcxvcxvcxvcxvcxvcxvvxzcxvcxvcvx interesting. There is some interesting nightlife fun with live music just north of downtown in the Deep Ellum district. Just north of Dallas in [[Addison, Texascvcvcxvcxvcxvcxve museum with vintage combat aircraft. If you are a food connoisseur Dallas is known for its restaurants, both in terms of quantity, variety and fine dining. Six Flags is in nearby Arlington next to where the Texas Rangers play. Or watch the Mavericks or Stars play in there new arena downtocvcxvcxvcxvNoMoJo|—B]] 22:32, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

Why was the first Dallas skyline picture replaced? The preceding picture was far better than the current one. B 20:05, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, the new picture is worse. I tried reverting it and it didn't seem to work (plus, I only clicked REV once and the page makes it look like I clicked it 3 times). I guess I don't understand the image files. We need someone to revert it back. Jfitts 21:58, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The problem with reverting the picture seems to have worked itself out. The original skyline photo is back in place. I re-uploaded the incorrect photo with a different name so the user who uploaded it can use it elsewhere. Jfitts 05:02, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Religious bias?

The section on religion in Dallas seems rather flip and perhaps biased -- almost the sort of put-down one would expect from a New Englander talking about anything Southern. I spent my entire adult & professional life in Dallas, and I was always much more aware of the large number of not only conservative Baptist churches, but ditto Methodist, Assembly of God, and many other fundamentalist types. This also ignores the influence of the Episcopal Church among the older semi-wealthy segment of the population (as shown by the reputation of St. Mark's), and also the fact that the Jewish community in Dallas, though small compared to someplace like New York or Chicago, has been influential for a very long time. (Look at the Neiman and Sanger families, among others.) Not to mention the significance of the Roman Catholic church among the constantly growing Hispanic population of Dallas. (I say all this, by the way, as a card-carrying secularist.)

Sorry -- this was from me, but I neglected to sign it. --Michael K. Smith 18:22, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree that the religion section needs to be rewritten. I joined Wikipedia in late 2003 and as a resident of Dallas I have been tweaking this article ever since. There are several sections that still need to have the POV removed, the religion section being one of them. This has been on my to-do list for a while. Your note has encouraged me to work on it again... but I notice on your user page that you list this article as having a heavy rewrite in the works. Have you already started a rewrite of the religion section (or any other section)? --Jfitts 15:09, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I echo the sentiment of the original post. I'm bothered not only by the article's chip-on-shoulder tone about Protestant morality in Dallas (contrasted with the high divorce rate and drinking establishments that apparently "line the avenues", whatever that means), but also by its sketchy grammar and dubious logic (e.g., Dallas isn't in the Bible belt because of the Protestant influence on the city, it's in the Bible belt because that's where it's located; it would be more accurate to say that the Bible belt extends into Texas because cities like Dallas have a large Protestant influence, etc.). I think it's clear that the author was trying (ineffectually) to prove a point with this paragraph, but it adds nothing to the article and seems remarkably out of place, especially since no other city I could find has a similar section. The only thing keeping me from deleting it outright is your promise to clean it up. Please, please do. -- Aubrey, 4 Nov 2004

I agree that the Religion section is lacking NPOV. I took a first stab at clean-up by removing the following text: Although the avenues are lined with drinking establishments.... Not only is it too subjective to belong in the article, but, for the reasons mentioned by Aubrey, it seems biased. - Walkiped 02:42, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think a rewrite is in order

I think it's about time we start rewriting this article. There are three problems I'd really like to address:

  • This article has entirely too much trivia. The bottom half of the article is almost entirely lists of things. While none of it is incorrect or even needs to be removed, the information needs to be presented differently. Much of the information (history, especially) needs to be incorporated into an honest-to-God, full-blown section.
  • The article partially addresses the city of Dallas, but quite a bit of it would be more appropriate in an area-wide article (it's just the nature of this town - things are scattered all over in multiple cities). The article repeatedly makes mention of companies headquartered in the suburbs, people from the area born in suburbs and sports teams that aren't actually in Dallas. Some of the information needs to stay, of course, but much of the article covers Dallas from a region-wide, suburban perspective.
  • Finally, the article is just really lacking in substance. Now, you could argue that it's just like the city of Dallas itself in that regard (and I can't completely disagree) but there is so much more that Dallas has to offer and I'd like to see the article reflect that.

So. Who's with me? :) I'll start working out a general outline. Anybody who has comments or would like to contribute, please make a note of it below. Thanks! RADICALBENDER★ 21:00, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here's the start of an Outline. RADICALBENDER★ 22:30, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

George M. Dallas

didn't become VP until March 1845... john k 00:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Awfully white

For a city with such a dynamic Mexican-American community, which was part of the cotton belt, where Deep Ellum was once an important place on the map of the blues world, and where the caste system has only started to break down in the last half-century this article presents an awfully white Dallas. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Edie Brickell

I notice the addition of Edie Brickell. The article on her doesn't say where she's from, but I thought she was from Austin. Was she perhaps a transplanted Dallasite who made her name in Austin? Or am I totally mistaken? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:57, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)


I know she graduated from DISD's Arts Magnet High School (now the "Booker T Washington School for the Performing and Visual Arts"), and used to go back there and perform when the New Bohemians were big.
Also, her VH1 biography has her born in Oak Cliff.
OK -- Jmabel | Talk 19:10, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Intro length

The article introduction is over-long; the style guide sets a strict limit of three paragraphs, this article has six -- and a bullet-point list to boot. The material on history, and speculation as to the origin of the name, could surely be moved into the body of the article. Alai 19:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removed text

I removed the following, due to it being untrue and nonstandard:

All photos courtesy of the web site of John Roberts : http://www.miduppertexas.com/dallas/dallas.htm.

Someone may want to go through the unverified photos and see if they're from that site. --SPUI (talk) 14:19, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Images Dallas5.jpg and Dallas6.jpg clearly appear on the frontpage of that site, which also resolves to http://www.dallasarchitecture.info/dallas.htm. Both images are now marked as possible copyvios (one by me and one by a previous editor). The site also has archives of a number of other images. I didn't go digging to see if any of the other images in the article had been taken from there, but they could have been. Dragons flight 15:37, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Population: citation?

Recently, anonymously added: "According to more recent projections/estimates (From 2005) the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex has reached a population of 6,000,000." Sounds about right, but does anyone have a citation on this? -- Jmabel | Talk 15:23, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


Just a minor spelling correction: The plural of "tornado" is "tornadoes" not "tornados". Daninbigd

Upside-down picture

Uh, anyone else notice that the night picture from the International Space Station is upside down when you click on it to see it larger? Actually, I don't know which way is right, but one of them is upside down.

Yes, That is the way it was taken. I noted that in the original caption but someone edited this information out. I will rotate the image and reload. Zyzzy 2 July 2005 18:21 (UTC)Zyzzy

Satellite images

Is it really necessary to have four (count 'em) satellite images of the Dallas area on the page? I mean, there's the first one under, 'Geology', which outlines the different geographical regions, then there's the landsat 7 image, then the ISS image, and finally some image supposedly taken by an astronaut which doesn't really show much anyway. One would think we could probably reduce these images, and perhaps add other pictures, perhaps pictures of actual things and points of interest in the city itself? Dr. Cash 16:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Census designations

User:UH Collegian added information about the new Dallas—Plano—Irving metropolitan distinction created by the US Census. I removed this. I'm not challenging that this is probably true, but I don't think it is useful to describe the Metroplex in this way. The existing introduction follows the way the area is usually described by people familiar with it, and I think the introduction should stay that way.

I presume the census distinctions are useful for census takers, but they tend to be unfamiliar. For example, if we followed census distinctions, the San Francisco Bay Area would be renamed the "San Jose Bay Area". Common english descriptions just work better for introductions. I wouldn't object however if you want to add this material to the demographics section of the page. Dragons flight July 7, 2005 06:06 (UTC)

No, I did not make that up. Here is a link to the source: http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro-city/List4.txt The Dallas—Fort Worth—Arlington Metropolitan Statistical Area (official title) has two "metropolitan divisions", something that was created in 2003 by the U.S. Census. The two newly created metropolitan divisions within the Dallas—Fort Worth—Arlington MSA are Dallas—Plano—Irving and Fort Worth—Arlington. I was trying to provide FACTUAL information but something factual and hardcore fact with proof was denied and reverted! UH Collegian 7 July 2005 06:33 (UTC)
Having family in Dallas, I can tell you that it is simply not how residents refer to area. I still don't believe it makes sense to replace the well-known Metroplex term in the introduction with fairly arbitrary amalgams only used by the census. As I said, I'm happy to mention it in the demographics sections. Do you disagree that far more people refer to the area as the Metroplex?
I see now that you have clarified this in a new version to retain the well-known Metroplex term. I still disagree with the prominent usage of Dallas—Plano—Irving metropolitan division since I think it is weird, without being particularly useful. However, I won't revert it again without getting other opinions. Dragons flight July 7, 2005 07:09 (UTC)
I just thought it would be interesting to include Dallas—Plano—Irving since it is something new. I did not mean any harm by including it. It's more like a trivia and thought something people should know or be aware of. Also, the census never had a "metropolitan division" for certain defined metropolitan areas until 2003. I included it because I thought it was a good example sine the DFW metroplex is the only metropolitan area in Texas that has a "metropolitan division" designated by the U.S. Census. UH Collegian 7 July 2005 08:07 (UTC)
As for the "San Jose Bay Area" and/or "San Francisco Bay Area", those are NOT the official titles. They are really San Francisco—Oakland—Fremont and San Jose—Sunnyvale—Santa Clara. In addition, the San Francisco—Oakland—Fremont has two "metropolitan divisions" and they are Oakland—Fremont—Hayward and San Francisco—San Mateo—Redwood City.UH Collegian 7 July 2005 06:39 (UTC)
Okay, technically I am refering to the 2003 change from the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA Combined Statistical Area to the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA Combined Statistical Area, effectively giving San Jose top billing as a bay area city despite San Francisco traditional placement. Much of the news coverage at the time refered to it as the "San Jose Bay Area" as a result. Also, I don't think we should get hung up on census designations as "official" titles. Certainly, many city governments make usage of terms like "San Francisco Bay Area" and "Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex", which is an official endorsement of a sort. Besides, who wants to talk about living in a "combined statistical area"? Dragons flight July 7, 2005 07:09 (UTC)

Incorrect information is displayed

The "city" of Dallas is the third in TX and 9th American largest city, according to the 2004 Census Estimates. See: List of United States cities by population. --147.97.138.210 18:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Dallas will be the second largest city in the state of Texas until the next official U.S. Census 2010. Also, I have noted on the Dallas introduction that the city is now third and ninth in Texas and U.S. respectively as of the 2004 estimates. Until, the 2010 U.S. Census, Dallas will be the second largest city officially. Please note that the above annon user is a sockpuppet of Zereshk. & ndash; UH Collegian 19:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Not according to the US govt. Because the US govt uses the 2004 estimate figures, not the 2000 figures, as Z has pointed out. See List of United States cities by population.--Nightryder84 19:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
The above new user is suspected to be a sockpuppet of Zereshk to get his ways. As of this edit, that user only has 3 edit contributions. That new user account was created today as a result of my accusations of the annon. Stop the San Antonio fanatic sockpuppets. UH Collegian 19:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
The above user has a history of attacking Z, and is now attacking me, and I will take him to ArbCom if he doesnt shut up.--Nightryder84 19:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Shopping malls?

I'm curious why there's an entire section dedicated to "shopping malls" in Dallas? Is this really notable in an encyclopedia? There's shopping malls in virtually every major city or metro area in the U.S. (and abroad), so why is Dallas special? Also, where did the statistic of, "most shopping malls per capita in the U.S." come from?!?! Dr. Cash 05:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it's there to point out politely the obscene materialism prevalent in dallas. The shopping malls are where the city's soul is. A monument to greedy capitalism.

First or Second in crime?

From the Crime section:

The crime rate in Dallas has been ranked second in the country for large cities from 1998 to 2003. Most of the cities nieghborhoods are relatively immune to the more violent crimes which tend to be concentrated within a few blocks of major expressways and around garden-style apartment complexes. Dallas' crime rate has been ranked 1st from 1998-2004. In '95, there were a record 280 murders. Now, Dallas usually averages 230-235 slayings a year.

This seems self-contradictory. More specific statistic, anyone? With a source? GTBacchus 07:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

People and culture

I'm new to Wikipedia, but would like to do some work polishing up this article. I agree with most of the comments on this page. Yes, the artice seems rather 'white' for a city that is barely majority caucasian right now and will probably be majority minority in the near future.

I also agree with much of the comments in the Featured artice candidate objections. People and Culture could use some clean-up.

I'm esp. confused by

Major U.S Networks (i.e CBS, ABC, NBC, and FOX) have flagship transmitters in the city which helps the network broadcast well, especially if there is something wrong with electricity in the New York Area it can still be broadcast because of these transmitters. This was especially used during the 2003 North America blackout.

I know something about network broadcasting, but I don't have a clue what a 'flagship transmitter' is. Yes, networks have Owned-and-Operated stations, but those are the station's transmitters, not the networks; just like any other television broadcast transmitter. They don't help the network transmitt any better. Networks don't broadcast, stations do. Networks simply supply programming to stations via land-line or sattlite link. 1) I think this statement is flat out wrong. 2) Even if it is right, it's a trivial piece of information that isn't useful to the artice. The major networks do not have an importaint presence in Dallas other than their affiliate stations, and only some of them are owned-and-operated. I'd like to delete these two sentences, but since I'm so new to Wikipedia, I don't want to do it without some feedback from others.

I also think the artice to much emphasas on crime. 1) it's mentioned in the lead 'People and Society' paragraph and then is repeated in it's own seperate sub-heading. While the facts may be true, I don't think the average resident of Dallas considers crime to be that importaint a problem compared to other major American cities.

Comments would be appreciated. --Jleeper 20:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Who's writing neighborhood/districts in? Your content is being moved..

There are specific neighborhood pages defined at the bottom of the page in the Dallas neighborhood template box. Please do not discuss neighborhoods at length in the major article. I'm moving the information, if relevant and not already existing, to their respective pages. Also, if you're going to start a new neighborhood page or edit an existing one, I would appreciate it if you followed the layout so we can have some uniformity.

Also, *someone* (I assume the person putting in neighborhoods) moved the notable structure list into the neighborhood section.. or renamed notable structures 'neighborhoods.' Please be careful with editing if you aren't experienced.

Satellite photos

Does this article really need four shapeless, meaningless blobs which might be satellite photos of Dallas but might also be ant-heaps? Adam 11:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Climate

Hi,

I was hoping to find something like the following for Dallas (dates for highest and lowest temperatures). Would it be possible to add this information?

Seattle's hottest temperature ever recorded was 100 °F (37 °C) on July 20, 1994 and the coldest temperature ever recorded was 0 °F (-17 °C) on January 31, 1950.

Best regards, Charles

Not sure what good it is, but that all time high was 113 F, June 26 & 27, 1980. A certain uncle of mine felt it was a wonderful time to go jogging around White Rock Lake and collapsed in the process. Dragons flight 03:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
TX Climatology Information [1] Dallas Climatology information: [2] —  KaiserB 03:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Neighborhood Content

Hey, again, If you wanna make neighborhood content, make it correctly. Separate pages, people.. the Dallas page is already almost 50kb.. Drumguy8800 02:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Corporate headquarters

--From the Intro: "The metro area is the largest concentration of corporate headquarters in the United States"- does anyone have a source for this? The term "corporate" seems very imprecise here, and I'm certain it's not referring to Fortune 500 headquarters. --Jleon 02:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Although I have written virtually none of this page I do know there are 7,000 companies, 19 companies in the Fortune 500 Public businesses and 16 companies in the Fortune 500 Private businesses. Data here:[3] —  KaiserB 03:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

--Thanks, but that source does not say anything about it having the most corporate headquarters. Its also strange that it lists these headquarters as a "major industry" even though they certainly belong to different industries themselves. 7,000 doesn't seem even like that many to me, especially seeing that just about any business can be incorporated. --Jleon 03:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

History?

What was happening in Dallas during the period of rule of Spain? What native tribes lived here? Were there any Spanish ventures into the area, or was it just a wilderness that Spain claimed but never settled? Stallions2010 00:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit request from TimJack310, 17 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Dallas info on coldest temperature needs to be corrected. Coldest temperature ever was not 1 degree F in 1989...it was -8F from 1899 per the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association). Also, NOAA has -1F as the lowest in 1989 and not the 1F that is posted. Thanks! TimJack310 (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you just give us the link to the NOAA info?  fetchcomms☛ 19:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Found it here, and went ahead and changed the record high & low in the article, but the Dallas weather table is not fixed yet. Seems to me that the National Weather Service would be the most reliable source for temps, but I see quite a few inconsistencies between the table in the article and that source. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 22:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 Done I corrected {{Dallas weatherbox}}, so the box is correct now. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 23:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

omg

texas is to —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.0.41.29 (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess this says it all...hopefully, the poster was not rendered suddenly and catastrophically digitally mute by a massive subdural cerebral event, but was simply overwhelmed by the grandeur of Texas ;-)
William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

funny post. thanks. Dallas rocks. Erehwon37 (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Education

I added an education section. People moving here want to know about the schools. Erehwon37 (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Population Ranks

Dallas has a population of 1,406,350 the population ranks are old, it should be changed to this: Dallas would be the 2nd largest city in Texas and the 7th largest city in the USA. Ladarron June 16, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladarron (talk • contribs) 05:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. Dallas is the third largest city in Texas. Find ar reference that supports your claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.83.53.249 (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2010 (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 move. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


Dallas → Dallas, Texas — The city is used in most reliable sources. 75.142.152.104 (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose another rename request by 75.142.152.104 (talk · contribs) 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Dallas is the city in Texas for by far the majority of people —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabzzap (talk • contribs) 14:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is important to consider that this is not just the American Wikipedia, this is the Wikipedia for the entire English language. Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and other English-speaking countries share this Wikipedia with an importance no less than the United States. As we can see at Dallas (disambiguation), there are many other cities out there worldwide that are named Dallas. Although in the United States Dallas is most likely going to mean Dallas, TX, it may not be that way in other English-speaking countries. Many other Wikipedia articles on major cities only use the city name in the article title, omitting the state/country name, which would be understandable on major cities like New York City and London that are well known worldwide by only the city name, but on a smaller city (in comparison), like Dallas, TX, we need to know whether it is the city referred to most by only its name among English-speaking countries worldwide, before we name its Wikipedia article using only the city name.

    And we should not oppose a move request just because it was nominated by a certain user. We should only give our opinions based on what we think about moving the article in question, taking into account Wikipedia naming conventions like WP:Article titles#Common names, not based on who nominated the article. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. While I personally don't like it, there is this. Plus, incomprehensible nomination by a persistently disruptive user. --Sable232 (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As User:Sable232 points out, there is a lasting consensus that Wikipedia follows the AP style for a few cities. I personally got Cleveland, Ohio moved to Cleveland not long ago. At present, Wikipedia deviates from the AP on Las Vegas, Nevada, Phoenix, Arizona, St. Louis, Missouri and Washington, D.C.. I am not clear on why Las Vegas retains its state and I may request it be moved, but the other three at least have obvious other targets. Abductive (reasoning) 19:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Dallas in Texas is by far the most well known Dallas. As such, leaving this article at Dallas and linking to a disambiguation page, as is the case currently, is the best approach and consistent with Wikipedia policy on article titles and disambiguation. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I asked the question, "When you hear the word 'Dallas', do you think of 'Dallas, Texas' more than anywhere else?" on the tourist bulletin board at VirtualTourist (chosen because of the large number of non-American English speakers who use it), and the answer was a near unanimous "yes" - see the discussion. To be fair, a majority felt that it would be fair that the article be named "Dallas, Texas" rather than "Dallas", but only because they did not understand things like the AP stylebook (none of them are Wikipedia contributors so far as I know). In any case, if the issue is "Is Dallas (for Texas) a name that is so well-known that the mere mention of 'Dallas' calls to mind 'Dallas, Texas' almost exclusively?", the answer is clearly "yes", even among a non-scientifically selected group of non-US English speakers from around the world.--William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2010 (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.

Collaboration

If anyone here would like to collaborate on getting this article to a more acceptable status (maybe WP:GA?), send me a message on my talk page. --Mahanga (Talk) 10:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Census 2010

The census 2010 count is more than 100,000 less than the 2009 estimate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/17/AR2011021707179.html?nav=hcmoduletmv

The number for Houston was also 155,000 less than the 2009 estimate, and San Antonio was slightly below expectations.Ryoung122 12:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Places of Interest

Why does the "places of interest" section for the Dallas wikipedia page include so many locations that are not in the city of Dallas? Out of 19 locations listed, I note that one (Texas Motor Speedway) is in Fort Worth, three (Six Flags, Hurricane Harbor, Cowboys Stadium) are in Arlington, and two (Texas Stadium and Southfork Ranch) are in Dallas suburbs. While it would be appropriate to include these locations in the DFW metroplex page, it seems odd to have them on the page for Dallas proper. If there are no objections, I would like to remove these locations from the page. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Cityscape

I've removed the lower panorama from the Cityscape section. (I've also shrunk the middle one, and slightly enlarged the upper one) I saw it to be an unnecessary addition to the Dallas page, but I wanted to explain in further detail my reasoning for editing the way I did, to prevent possible edit wars from ensuing.


A few weeks ago I uploaded a panorama of the Dallas skyline that I made from photos I took from the West Village parking garage. I then put it in the Dallas article, replacing the previous, outdated panorama (taken from Victory Park in '06). I first thought of just adding it to the Cityscape section along side the existing one, but no matter which way I tested the layout, it just didn't look right. So since the skyline panorama I had made was an improvement over the old one, I just removed the old one from the page entirely. By doing so I prevented the cityscape section from looking absurd. Huge pictures that go across the whole width of the window should be few and special. Dallas isn't important enough that it needs its wiki article to have five-dozen massive pano's scattered all over the place. That would be too boastful.


So it had been some time since I'd checked the article and I thought of doing so today. When I got on, I found that two additional skyline panoramas had been added to the cityscape section below mine. Now neither of them is bad, but as I stated above, having three enormous pictures in the same part of a wiki page really doesn't improve it. Unless there's a good reason for it (i.e. each of the pictures plays its own role of sorts in the article viewers' experience while looking over it, and the quality of all of them is top-notch), it will just make it all look messy.

Now as it happens with these panoramas, the ones on the middle and bottom do add another perspective to Dallas's cityscape. While mine was taken from uptown (essentially within the skyline itself), these were taken from across the Trinity river (to give a wide angle of the entire city center). So in this case there is a purpose to having more than just one panorama filling the screen. But I can't see any reason to justify all three staying up. The first and second were both taken in the middle of the day, with blue sky. So the look of each of the first two panoramas is not only compatible, but actually helps them to complement each other. One is taken from one side pointing one way, the other is taken from the other side pointing the opposite way. The third (from Inwood Road), however, is just redundant and unnecessary. I know that the spot it was taken from is a few miles from the Belmont Hotel, but the angles look close enough to not need a third panorama in the same section. DKW 85 (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with the removal of the picture. Maybe we can add it back? It was nice! Karnifro (talk) 07:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree. The Dallas skyline is not as prominent or notable as New York's, Chicago's, or Miami's. Two shots is already pushing it, but they are appealing and do show different vantage points. It should be kept at two maximum, and I believe the current images to be fine. 08OceanBeachS.D. 08:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree either. I'm with Karnifro and think the third picture did add a valuable addition to the Dallas cityscape that is very different from the other two. It helps to show that Dallas has grown substantially over the last decade to such an extent that it is multi-dimensional in its Downtown cityscape and when viewed from differing angles the views are substantially different yet all very big-city in their feel. And the fact the third picture was taken at sunset actually worked beautifully as a complement to the first and second images. As a suggestion you may want to speak to the person who posted those pictures before arbitrarily removing them .... what if they removed your's without discussing with you? Or I suggest alternatively at a minimum reduce the third picture to the same dimensions as the second image and add it back, maybe then the original poster may agree with you and you will avoid a possible edit war ensuing. I say put the third picture back. Dallasborn&bred (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Type of municipal government

The type of government listed in the article is council-manager; I believe Dallas is better described as a weak mayor-council city, as per the Wikipedia article, based on its mayor being elected by the city population and having some powers outside of merely chairing the city council. Anyone have thoughts on this? Gnassar (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree. Can you give greater detail to your reasoning? Lawblogger18 (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry; seems I wasn't getting email notifications. Well, I'm not sure there's more detail to be given -- again, Dallas' mayor is elected by the city population; in a council-manager government, it would be appointed by the council, or alternatively, would be voted on to sit on the council (this per the WP entries linked above.) Neither is the case. The weak-mayor-council description linked above, however, fits Dallas to a T, in that the council has both legislative and executive powers and the mayor, though popularly elected, "lack[s] effective executive power and restriction on the ability to appoint and remove officials, and lack veto powers".

By that description, it would seem pretty clear, I think. Gnassar (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

File:COH Spring 04small- WWolfe.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:COH Spring 04small- WWolfe.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • 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.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Population

I changed the population to reflect the NCTCOG 2009 estimates. Joshua Scott (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed to reflect 2010 Census

So, we have a contradiction here. In Dallas entry:

Dallas (play /ˈdæləs/) is the largest city in Texas[4][5] and the ninth-largest in the United States

In Houston entry:

Houston[5] is the fourth-largest city in the United States of America, and the largest city in the state of Texas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.120.55 (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

The article is about Dallas, not the Dallas-Fort Worth MSA. The recently added material to the lead paragraph not only concerns Dallas but all other cities in the MSA. This should be moved to the the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex article. Postoak (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Emphatic agreement. Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 are about the area and not the city. I'm removing.--Louiedog (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It is interesting that the person who has a problem with this information is from Houston. The data as presented is important to understand that Dallas IS DFW. Most of the data in fact was Dallas related with a reference to its position within its metro. Jealousy from a competing city in Texas is not a basis for removing important data that explains Dallas' role in the State and the Country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.192.12 (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop making ridiculous assumptions. Focus on the article and not the editor. As I stated, the infomation added is about the Metroplex and not Dallas. Dallas in NOT DFW. Dallas is within the DFW metroplex, along with Fort Worth, Arlington, Plano, etc. The lead violates WP:USCITY, simple as that. Postoak (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I am not from Houston and I agree with Postoak. The Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex article is the place for these sorts of pieces of information. This article is about the city proper of Dallas, not the metro area, as per WP:USCITY guidelines. The metro area of any city gets a passing mention in the form of the metro population size, but any more than that is not appropriate here.--Louiedog (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, please do not revert war as your next revert will be a WP:3RR violation. You can discuss here all you want with no violation of wikipedia policy, but please wait until consensus has been reached on the talk page before making the change again. Failure to do so just winds up in antagonism between editors and you getting blocked.--Louiedog (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

City Seal

Could someone please, pretty please, change the colors of the seal to match the flag? The current colors are horrid --Thegunkid (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

File:TE-Collage Dallas.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:TE-Collage Dallas.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 17 December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • 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.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandal

Hi, it seems you've been vandalized! Some enterprising a-hole included the words "Dallas sucks!!!!!!!" at the start of one paragraph about two screens down the page, throwing the entire paragraph out of whack in the process. Thought someone should know...

89.102.132.83 (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but that was fixed a while ago. szyslak (t) 01:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Jewish community

I was quite surprised to notice that the Religion section makes no mention whatsoever of the city's sizable, influential, and history-laden Jewish community. Perhaps someone could address this rather glaring omission with a paragraph or two. 173.173.120.49 (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Find a source demonstrating the size and/or significance of the Jewish community in Dallas go ahead and include it.--Louiedog (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

File:English-Amharic-Spanish.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:English-Amharic-Spanish.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion 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 provide a fair use rationale
  • 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 Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:English-Amharic-Spanish.JPG)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Culture

I think that including specific events and festivals around New Years Eve are important to include. Events such as Big D NYE and Lights All Night, as both have come back multiple years. Jennasl (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Spur 408 Article

Anyone up for making a Spur 408 article? Its the only red link in the list of highways/roads/interstates. TheMesquito (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

the temperatures don't seem to be right

Please click the following link for details: http://www.wunderground.com/NORMS/DisplayNORMS.asp?AirportCode=KDAL&SafeCityName=Dallas&StateCode=TX&Units=none&IATA=DFW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accent (talk • contribs) 06:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


Temperatures are not self consistent, the details of record high temperature and record low temperature in the text of the article contradict the details in the table directly below the text . — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrTubbles (talk • contribs) 13:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

City, State naming conventions

Why is this article not titled Dallas, Texas? There are at least 7 other cities named Dallas in the US. Is this some distinction that was made due to the popular TV series of the same? If that's the case then the article titled Dallas should be about that TV program. I am a big believer in the consistency and uniformity of naming conventions. In my opinion the redirect is backwards. Any thoughts out there on this?Walter 16:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WalterJF (talk • contribs) .I reconsidered my position on this after looking at Chicago, Los Angeles, etc. and I realized that these articles are named from "what's the first place that comes to mind when you mention (name a large US city)?". It's obvious to me that Wiki-Pedia does not follow the naming conventions that one might find in a physical book-form of an encyclopedia. Please do not respond to this. I am withdrawing this discussion. Walter 16:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WalterJF (talk • contribs)

I will respond to this and say that you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy; NOBODY but the residents of the other 6 Dallas' in the US think of anything but the city of Dallas when hearing it's name. Also, please sign your talk page posts with four tildes 71.170.12.131 (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Neighborhoods

"Midtown Dallas" as defined by this article is not used by ANYONE in Dallas as far as I know. Do you have a source? The only references for something called "Midtown Dallas" are for a planned development near the Galleria (along 635) which is nowhere near the "Midtown" described in this article.

The Dallas Contemporary is not in the "City Center District." It is in the Design District.

99.178.186.115 (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Midtown Dallas deleted for that reason. OsageCowboy (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Under Arts

Under Arts it says that Dallas Buyers Club was filmed in Dallas however all of it was filmed in the state of Louisiana Brittgn (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Districts

What is the difference between a district and a neighborhood? Many locations are listed as both. Should the District section just be deleted? OsageCowboy (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree - if all neighborhoods can't be included why include any districts or neighborhoods. Delete it!Brittgn (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

If you want particular neighborhoods included, feel free to add them. Just because the list is incomplete is no reason to remove it when it's clearly useful. Scarlettail (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree in part and disagree in part. Including the neighborhoods is useful. But having them listed twice, once calling them Neighborhoods and then calling them Districts, is not useful. OsageCowboy (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Origin of the name "Dallas"

Plenty of detail and factual content in the Article -- but nothing about where the name simply comes from! I have therefore included the information ("History" section, 2nd para).

75.148.238.178 (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably because the origin of the name is unknown. Take a look at THIS LINK from the Texas State Historical Society. Onel5969 TT me 21:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Having said that, both this link at Etymology Online and this link at the US Senate History site, indicate that the VP was the origin of the term. Someone with more interest in the origin of the name might do a bit more research and add to the article. Onel5969 TT me 21:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
In that case, someone with a bit more interest in correctly administering Wikipedia needs to take a look at the George M. Dallas page, which categorically states (1st para) that Dallas is named after him. There must be consistency on Wikipedia; clearly there is not. 75.148.238.178 (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely agree on that. If I think about it today, I'll saunter on over there. Onel5969 TT me 16:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 35 external links on Dallas. 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 checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dallas. 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 checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dallas. 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 checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Politics

The section on politics is in need of rewriting and cleaning. I recommend: 

  - Moving the Politics Section to the bottom of the Culture sub-section
  - Citation is needed
  - Focusing on Local politics with a brief mention of National and State voting trends


I would suggest that we present both viewpoints on Dallas (the City) being politically left or right.

I think linking to an article on Dallas-Ft Worth politics would allow a better place to show the comparison of voting trends in Dallas with those of suburbs. (ex Plano)

I would be more than happy to work with others to clarify the information in the article as well as find citation of the information.

Preston A. Vickrey (Maj Gen know-it-all) (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop referring to Dallas and Texas for that fact as the American South. Texas is in no way culturally, politically, or ideologically connected to the south. If standard classifications have to be used, the American Southwest would be more appropriate but even beyond that Texas very much has it's own identity. As a matter of fact we actually have more in common with Mexico than we do the United States. In fact our energy grid, which we have our own, is connected to Mexico, but not the United States. It's very misleading to have readers from across the world who are trying to understand the geopolitical aspects of this coutrry and is various regions to read about the south and then Texas and then try to connect the two to only find that there are minimal similarities. From a historical context, if one studies Texas history, they will find that the only reason Texas joined the confederacy was get away from the united states as so afterwards they could declare their own Republic again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.250.183 (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"In 1969 Anita N. Martínez become the first Hispanic to sit as a council women in Dallas' city council.[141]" While noteworthy, this appears to be irrelevant in the context of the paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.84.4 (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dallas. 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 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Dallas. 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 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Temperature records

Should DFW Airport or Love Field be used as the reporting station for Dallas (not the DFW region) itself? According to ThreadEx (NOAA), "Dallas/Fort Worth Area" reported out of Fort Worth from 1898 until August 1974, and since then, at DFW Airport, whereas "Dallas Area" was based in downtown Dallas from 1913 until the opening of Love Field in 1940. Clearly, the first of the two offers a longer period (by 14–15 years) and includes the Great Blizzard of 1899, but the latter is closer to downtown Dallas. In addition, the text at least at Dallas#Climate appears to use records from the former. Another question would be which station is used for official (and news) reports for Dallas itself? GotR Talk 05:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Almost universally, DFW weather station is used for all official records for the region. Love Field is closer (it's only 3 miles from downtown!), I agree, but local and national news always quote DFW airport records so we should probably stick with that for consistency sake Hadlock (talk) 08:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Dallas. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Dallas. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 27 external links on Dallas. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Dallas. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Nickname

AdiV16 (talk · contribs) recently added the nickname "Big D" to the infobox. Is this actually a common nickname for Dallas? larryv (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Just in case anyone else wonders, this is most assuredly a common nickname for Dallas. Note that it is even used in the name of one of the sources of this article (Payne, Darwin (1982). "Chapter VII: The Emergence of "Big D"". Dallas, an illustrated history. Woodland Hills, California: Windsor Publications. pp. 189–221. ). It was also used in a play on words in the 1994 country song Goin' Through the Big D. --Khajidha (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dallas. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Dallas. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Editing without edit descriptions

Dallas page watchers: There is someone making many changes to Dallas. Some appear to be helpful. Some may not be. It's hard to tell because this editor does not use edit descriptions. The editor is also making changes to the Dallas politics template. [4] Oldsanfelipe (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Demographics - LGBTQ

Demographics section states "Recognized for having the sixth largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) population in the nation, the Dallas metropolitan is widely noted for being home to a thriving and diverse LGBT community.[67]".

However, in reviewing this 2015 NYTimes article, that seems to be false. Dallas in fact ranks 35th in the nation. The NYTimes article references this Gallup study: http://news.gallup.com/poll/182051/san-francisco-metro-area-ranks-highest-lgbt-percentage.aspx?utm_source=Social%20Issues&utm_medium=newsfeed&utm_campaign=tiles. Spikem (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikem (talk • contribs) 21:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Metropolitan population in the lead

@Magnolia677: I think the lead needs some copy editing: there is too much emphasis on the metro area in the first sentences. It should be re-written to emphasize the city of Dallas. OTOH, the advice page Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline says Metro population, "should be included in the lead section." Perhaps the lead should be re-written to include Metro population while de-emphasizing Metro characteristics as a whole. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Oldsanfelipe: Ah, yes. Feel free to revert, and maybe we can work on it. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I added the precise number for Metro pop. Hopefully the URL is stable: most URLs at the Census web site are not. Other numbers in the lead were precise, so the same rounding method can be used for all. I am uncertain about the rules for rounding, but I will look at that part of the MOS later. Cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Number of Russian speakers overstated in Demographics section

The demographics section cites a claim of 70,000 Russian speakers in the Dallas-Ft. Worth metro as of November 6, 2012, but that figure is surely greatly overstated: According the US Census of 2010, there were only around 17,000 Russian speakers in the entire state of Texas. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_language_in_the_United_States> Gary Henscheid (talk) 08:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

So dark...is this Texas??

I've always found Texas to be a "bright" place. Long sunny days, and noticeably "bright" people. And then...the infobox collage (look right -->>). So many night shots. So much darkness. Any objection to replacing the photo with something a bit more uplifting, with an image that can actually be seen? Thanks for your input! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Infobox montage or single image

I've noticed on other articles such as Vancouver, St. Louis and San Francisco that they only utilize one single image in their infoboxes. I went ahead and glanced over the discussions that lead those pages to only utilize a single image and they all revolve around the same idea that montages are unnecessary as only the downtown areas are truly "iconic". All the other subjects in their previous montages are not nearly as iconic enough to be recognized by the average Wikipedia reader and it would be best suited if they were solely included elsewhere in the article. I think the same thing goes with Dallas, nothing other than downtown is really "recognizable", therefore a montage is not really necessary. Anyone else have thoughts? 73.73.86.129 (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

San Francisco is a very dense city by area and population, therefore it is merely pointless for them to maintain a montage unless they can utilize some very greatly iconic places. The arguments for St. Louis and Vancouver can be stated the same, in addition to the fact that such communities aren't comprised of various relevant areas for "iconic's" sake. That was even supported in the Vancouver talk page where they spoke on the ever-large montage: "Vancouver or San Francisco simply offer nothing of popular consciousness." Even in the archives of San Francisco's talk page, they initially support a montage, however San Francisco is too small and lacks the iconic landmarks and places that could be found in another dense place like New York and its suburban communities. They tried doing what the New York City article montage has, but alas, again, not much iconic stuff in that dense area with up-to-date photos. The edifices pictured here are very well known to the average person in and out of state, regardless of Wikipedians. A montage included elsewhere on an article for a whole city would mean the creation of a completely new settlement format. On a final note: your edits doing this to several settlements have been rolled back by Wikipedia's administrative and moderation team, in addition to others. -- TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Get rid of the montage. Too many pictures and way too many "night shots" which adds unnecessary black space. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Instead of removing why don't you find any "day shots" then instead of removing something altogether. It's not that hard...that's why the new montage was posted. Also, you seem to desire to have it removed furthermore because they were too dark. I tried adding more brighter photos to the new one. Find some images or come here yourself and take some day images. You also then seem to desire to have it removed furthermore because they were too dark earlier in the year. --TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Montages simply don't work. Most cities, including Dallas, don't have enough iconic images, and the shrinking of pics to squash them into a montage makes them too small to be useful. If the pictures are good, use them elsewhere in the article in a larger format. HiLo48 (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Montages simply do work. That's why almost every Wikipedia settlement article has them. Dallas does have enough iconic images, and none of these are "squashed". But quick question, where are your recent contributions here? And why do you seemingly come out of nowhere unlike Magnolia? I have questions. TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Secondly, I have no idea what most of the places are in your montage. Thirdly, I am here because I can't stand montages. Fourthly, why does it matter where I'm from? This is a global encyclopaedia. (Note that spelling.) HiLo48 (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Of course WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; and in this instance one could argue the argument is valid to keep the montage as "the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". This is consistent.. Second, you do not, but that doesn't mean everyone doesn't. That's bias shown. Third, you can't stand montages. Also bias shown. Instead of improving Wikipedia you just seem to just seek to use personal bias for your own gain for what articles should have montages and which ones shouldn't. Don't insult my intelligence with that variation of English by the way. When push comes to shove...you know the saying... --TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Please discuss the merits of montages, rather than me. HiLo48 (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Unlike you, I discussed the merits extensively. You just merely pointed out a personal agenda.TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
You're still talking about me. HiLo48 (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Get off your high horse of "intellectualism" and go away with your trolling. TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@TheTexasNationalist99: Insulting editors who don't agree with you isn't helpful. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Announcing someone's personal grievances isn't helpful? Forgive me if that's insulting. Truly. And please forgive me for pointing out the obvious that I'm being trolled. Downtown Dallas is iconic. Big Tex is iconic. The Old Red Museum is an iconic national historic site. Windspear Opera House is iconic. The Perot Museum is as well, in addition to the Gardens and American Airlines Center. We could do away with the city hall and mall and debate their iconic positions, but the others are definitely iconic. --TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Nearly every single result of Google Images for "Dallas" is it's downtown, nothing else. If you Google NYC, Beijing or Paris, you'll find a mixture of many of its commonly associated sites. As a result, it can be reasonably concluded that downtown Dallas is the city's only prominent feature. Montages may work well for other cities, as those cities have numerous equally important and recognizable sites, but Dallas simply lacks that sort of character. So I think that Dallas is one of those cities where a single image would work the best; all other lesser-known subjects in the montages should go to their respective sections. 73.73.86.129 (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for responding back. I can see where you come from with that statement fellow contributor. However, is Google really a reliable source for this? And any other search engine? TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Great idea. How about Baidu and Yandex? Surely they will show some non-downtown images. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I literally just chuckled. I meant that we cannot use search engines as reliable sources. TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I have a really crazy idea...how about...no, it's too crazy! Ok, let me just throw this out. Instead of search engine popularity and similar shenanigans...why don't we try...are you ready...why don't we read all the comments left on this talk page by all the editors, and see what the consensus of opinion is? Is that too crazy??? Magnolia677 (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
My God!! How outrageous of you LOL. But yeah, HiLo's personal dislike does not apply whatsoever as their intent is exposed. They carry no weight. And arguments for removing were countered easily in the first response. --TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I gave reasons for my opposition to montages. Please discuss them rather than talking about me. HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
"Because I can't stand montages," you've written. TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
These are all reasons that have been debated against with evidence. There appears there is no census. --TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I gave reasons why I can't stand montages. "Most cities, including Dallas, don't have enough iconic images, and the shrinking of pics to squash them into a montage makes them too small to be useful. If the pictures are good, use them elsewhere in the article in a larger format." Please discuss those reasons. HiLo48 (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree. None of those "squashed" landmarks in the montage is particularly recognizable nor that prominent in any context. A single clear shot of downtown would serve well for Dallas. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 08:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Still reject them based on easy evidence. This feels like an attempt to rush something. Dallas isn't NY or CA but these are prominent to Texans and others interested in it!!! --TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

TheTexasNationalist99, if I see you badger, taunt, harass, insult, or denigrate one more editor, I will block you. Focus on content, not editors. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, but that was because I felt insulted by HiLo48, so I retaliated harshly and continued to do so. And I recognize that I did. So forgive me for acting in my own defense. But you're right, focus on the content. And I did, extensively in the first response, respectfully writing. TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
What "easy" evidence do you mean? I can't find it. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 20:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Article turned into an art gallery by Contribuidorconta

About a week ago, I have reverted good-faith, yet unconstructive contributions to this article from the user named above; these edits gave nothing but huge areas of white space and images all over the place as if it's a tourist article. They even kept adding periods to the captions, reverted some long-standing and high quality files with low-quality, extremely dark images, etc. Those contributions were reverted by me, yet they reverted my contributions to upstand with the article's status with no explanation whatsoever. I am starting a discussion to see what other contributors may have in mind, or if I should just approach Wikipedia administrators since they didn't even desire to communicate nor provide an edit summary. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

White Flight - specific citation needed

"Dallas's population was historically predominantly White (non-Hispanic whites made up 82.8% of the population in 1930), but its population has diversified due to immigration and white flight over the 20th century." This statement makes no sense. From 1930 to 2020 the white population of Dallas grew by +60%. That's the opposite of evidence of white flight. A factually correct section would read something like, "Share of white population decreased due to domestic and international migration." Yourmomsofat (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dallas/Archive_1&oldid=1243846458"