Talk:Austin, Texas/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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 [[::User:66.68.118.72|66.68.118.72]] ([[::User talk:66.68.118.72|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/66.68.118.72|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

• 2008-03-14T01:36:07 - Alamo Drafthouse paragraph added to "Media" section
• 2008-03-14T09:18:22 - Alamo Drafthouse paragraph moved to new "Theaters" section
• 2008-05-12T18:37:14 - User:Danorton (talk) removed Alamo Drafthouse paragraph
• 2008-05-12T22:02:30 - Reverted, restoring Alamo Drafthouse paragraph to "Theaters" section

--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..." and "The largest urban bat colony in North America feels perfectly at home in Austin from late March until early October" . 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. Agne^Cheese/^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."

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."

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

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)