Talk:Texas/Archive 4

message: What About The Alamo?!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradagain (talk • contribs) 16:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc

message: Just for completeness' sake, I added a quick couple of sentences on the WNBA teams and appropriate league championships to the basketball section, after it mentions the NBA championships by the Rockets and Spurs.  Nothing fancy.  Palironsat 08:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Added WNBA blurb

message: I noticed that the the total area for Texas varies between two articles, this one and the List of US states by area article. So, my question is, which one is correct? 24.240.39.207 00:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The one on the List of US states by area is incorrect. I fixed it. Thanks for raising the issue Dabomb87 01:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Error

message: For the following reasons I think that the article on Texas should be broken up into other smaller articles.  1) the article on Texas is 66 kilobytes long and according to the Wikipedia: Article size guidelines articles should not be that large. This article could easily be broken up into the following smaller articles: 1) Texas Culture - 2) Texas Health Care & Medicine - 3) Education.  If we created these 3 smaller articles and linked to them from the Texas Article this would bring the Texas article back down to about 40 Kilobytes which is the general size Wikipedia articles should be. Eric 16:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article already has subarticles. Culture of Texas and Education in Texas already exist. Article size is recommended but not a rule. The article itself could be trimmed. I'm removing the banner. Postoak 00:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this is a very large article and hard to navigate/load/etc, please split it. Matt K 3:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Please see WP:NOT - specifically Wikipedia is not paper space is not a concern.  Given that Texas is bigger and more populous than many conutnries of the world, seperate articles are needed to cover these topics. Johntex\talk 17:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I would suggest you check out Wikipedia:Summary_style on how long articles are commonly handled.  Some of the information in this article is too fine of detail for an article on Texas itself.  The New York article contains less markup than Texas, which inflates the size of the Texas article (for example, see the references).  The subject of Texas is far more deep than your average article.  You can write many books on this subject, which is not the case with most articles.  The article already attempts to break itself into smaller articles; therefore, it is already split.  The only thing that might be beneficial is to remove some of the more fine details that are perfectly suitable for an article on Texas Culture, Texas Government, etc. but not so important in the grand scheme of the state.  For example, Oklahoma State losing to Ole Miss in the Cotton Bowl a couple of years ago most certainly does not belong here, but would be perfect for the Cotton Bowl article.  -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 23:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Split

message: Does anyone know if Sam Johnson is related to the Texas political family of Lyndon Johnson, whose brother, father and paternal grandfather were all named Sam or Samuel Johnson. TonyTheTiger 21:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LBJ relationship? 

message: Frequenly omitted from the list of flags over Texas is that of the Republic of the Rio Grande, which was in existence for 283 days in 1840.  For information on the Republic of the Rio Grande, see Republic of the Rio Grande. -- Loye Young, Laredo, Texas. 5 January 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.40.84.210 (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SEVEN flags over Texas 

message: If we're going to have a section on "Architecture" in Texas, then it'd better be about architecture, not just about tall buildings. Skylines arent really what architecture is about. The section makes no mention of the architectural landmarks we have all across TX (examples: ), or the history of architecture in TX. And the section makes no mention of any of the buildings designed by world class super architects such as Tadao Ando, Louis Kahn, and Philip Johnson (all in FW), I.M. Pei (in Dallas), or César Pelli (in Houston).--Zereshk 22:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Architecture"?

message: Okay, wow what a kiss ass to texas. Did you know 1 in 3 texans is functionally illiterate. I think that deserves to be included, but the education section is so biased. There is a very high rate of unwed teenage pregnancies and poverty is abundant. It has the highest uninsurance rate in medicine. I am taking state and local government in texas and this is IN the book I have. I am thinking aobut just adding all that stuff in myself because all I have to do is hit ctrl-f and I found that the words "literacy" and "environment" were nowhere in this article. Texas is a very poor off state.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.164.65.229 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 2007 January 23
:If you want to add reputable citations to the article you are welcome to help work on it. Given your tone, though, it seems you just want to be insulting. If that is your goal then you can find another place.  Wikipedia is not your soapbox for insulting people you don't like.  Johntex\talk 17:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantastic, we will be much pleased if you make a meaningful contribution. Johntex\talk 18:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So far, your references are weak.  You can't say "Some studies..." and then quote a single study.  Furthermore, the reference isn't even to a study, its to a presentation by one person (Carolyn Bacon Dickson).  Who is she anyway?  Additions need to be backed up by reliable sources.  Also, we try to avoid weasel words such as "some" and "many". Finaly, please format your additions in the same reference style as the other references in the article.  Two different styles is confusing and unattractive.  Thanks, Johntex\talk 
I consider the department of education and government sites more than credible. I will work on it later though to improve on it.
05:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If it were the whole department making the claim, probably so - but one invited speaker is not necesarily speaking on behalf of the department.  In any case, "one" is not "some". Johntex\talk 07:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Now, the flow of the Education section is absolutely ruined.  This is the problem when a nOOb editor thinks that he or she possesses the literary (and research) prowess necessary in encyclopedia editing.  This is a common occurrence in Wikipedia, and is usually combatted by gaining consensus beforehand.  Mentioning illiteracy is not a problem, but inserting borderline vandalism (because the sections seem to have been written by a functionally illiterate person, coincidentally) is a major one.  My advice: give up on major articles and start creating/editing articles on niche trivia (as I do). Those articles will function perfectly with the types of sources you consider credible and the limited writing capability that you possess.  Know your limitations; the rest of us picked up on them quite easily. Dirtydan667 23:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: illiteracy

message: Someone please address the request below. Im not qualified enough for the job, so Im pasting the request here to attract your attention:
:Hi Zereshk. I have detected a temporal inconsistency in the Austin, TX article, politics section. The inconsistent phrase reads "Of Austin's six state legislative districts, three are strongly Democratic, and three are swing districts, all of which will be held by Democrats when Valinda Bolton assumes control of District 47 this January.". I am tempted to change it to something like "Of Austin's six state legislative districts, three are strongly Democratic, and three are swing districts. Currently all six are held by Democrats", but since I do not have political knowledge about the region I judged it wiser to ask someone living there. ¿Could you please take a look at it? Charles Dexter Ward 22:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Austin districts

message: I would imagine the GA nomination will fail. Sources are almost entirely missing in the following sections: Geography, Geology, Government and politics (big one), Administrative divisions, Culture, Transportation, as well as some other sections. -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 06:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail:  
GA concerns:
* 1b) structure
** The Administrative divisions should be a subsection of Government and politics.
** The Skyline profile section looks out of place.  The other major sections are History, Geography, Government and politics, Economy, Demographics, Culture, Transportation.  All of which are very course in their subject whereas skyline is much more fine grain.  Culture is probably a good home for it.  Possibly rename the section "Architecture".
** Rename "Transportation" to "Infrastructure" and merge "Healthcare and medicine" with the new section. (I like how Dallas, Texas does this anyhow).
* 1c) MoS
** The lead needs improved and give an overview of the article.
* 2a) references
** Some sections are almost entirely missing sources: Education, Transportation, Culture, Demographics, Administrative divisions, Government and politics.
* 2b) inline
** * Citations are not consistent.  Citations for the Handbook of Texas Online uses a template that is designed for the external links section and not designed for citing sources.
* 3b) focused
** A 2002 Houston Chronicle poll of Texans found that when asked "Do you support the death penalty?", 69.1 percent responded that they did, 21.9 percent did not support, and 9.1% were not sure or gave no answer. is not cited.  It seems to not be particularly relevant to the law section either.  And too fine of detail for the main article on Texas.
** In the politics section, the details about the 32 congressional districts is too fine of detail for the main article on Texas.
** The Highways section is way too long.  It actually looks longer than the main article Texas state highways.
** I don't care for the use of gallery in the skyline profile section.  Or maybe use :Image:Xvixionx 29 April 2006 Dallas Skyline.jpg.  The gallery could be moved to tallest buildings in Texas.
* 6c)
** I'm not sure about the use of :Image:Rick_perry.jpg.
Minor changes that should happen:
* "As mentioned above, Texas has 254 counties which affects the significancaue of this statistitc."  The article should be referencing itself like this.
* In the politics section, we're told Texas is a conservative state dominated by Republicans but Democrats controlled the majority in the House and Congressional Delegation until very recently.  This seems contradictory.  The reason for this is probably the Democratic party in Texas is significantly less liberal than the rest of the country's Democrats.  I don't know the reason, and I don't think readers would be expected to figure this out either.
* In the Administrative divisions section, the word weak isn't needed to describe the mayor-council system.  The reader's can figure this out.  I guess this would be a NPOV issue.
I'm not terribly great at grammar and spelling issues, so you should have someone look over that.
-- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 21:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nomination 

message: The land area in square miles and in square kilometers is shown as the same number.  I'm not very good at converting english to metric but I know THAT can't be right!!!76.100.192.234 03:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but see...I was counting forward with...and then I divided by...denominator...d'oh! BQZip01 15:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone is pulling your leg.  I've never heard the comparison made. Kuru talk 12:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard the comparisson before, but it was done as a joke. On a side note though, it seems to be an American fascination to put idiots on TV and ask them simple questions, which they inevitably get wrong. This might have spawned from one of these TV shows. — BQZip01 — talk 14:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Similar to the 'jaywalking' bit from Leno.  From what I've seen of that segment, I'm sure that if you asked around the streets of L.A. long enough, you could find someone who thought Texas was bigger than the moon. Kuru talk 00:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Brew-dog, whoever "they" is is wrong. That is liberal bias against America and its teaching standards. That information is taught, but is done in 4th grade (give or take a couple of years depending on the state/district you are in; Each state and local communities have differing standards on what is taught, though there are state and national minimums). I remember taking World History (which IMHO, took WAY too much time in Europe from 1000-1600 and not enough on the rest of the world), American History, Texas History, etc. I think if we look at each other's education systems, we will find both weak and strong areas in the systems, but overall a basic education is given either way. — BQZip01 — talk 14:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, I took European History in High School, but it was an elective — BQZip01 — talk 14:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BQZip01, I'll back you up on the U.S. eduction system. And I'll agree that there is often bias and small-mindedness pervasive throughout the world. I would not, however, call it a "liberal" bias. It is rather more of a conservative leaning on the part of those other communities. --Evb-wiki 14:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In retrospect, I guess I should have just said "bias" and not "liberal bias," since there is bias against the US on both major sides or the political continuum. Surely France doesn't have high opinions of us, but the Iran (not really a big sponsor of the US...) isn't exactly a bastion of conservatism... — BQZip01 — talk 15:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Texas land area 

message: The article states: In 2007 Texas had a gross state product of $1.045 trillion I have two problemes with this. First, I believe the year 2007 is not done yet; therefore, we do not know how much Texas's gross state product (GSP) for 2007 will be. It is possible the this figure ($1.045 trillion) is an estimate. If this is the case, we need to label it such and cite a reference. Second, this "estimated" GSP is not cited anywhere. There is a link to the BEA website on which our "estimated" figure is clearly missing.  This website gives information about the GSPs of each state for the year of 2005. As far as I know, the BEA will release their data about the 2006 GSPs in a few months. 
I don't understand how we got this "estimated" GSP for 2007. In any case, it needs to be cited properly. Please give your opinions, and whether or not you agree to change this line back to the official figure provided by the BEA. Thank you, (Eddie 22:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Remove it or cite it. BQZip01 17:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I also agree. Johntex\talk 20:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I was unable to find any kind of citation for this "estimate", I changed the figure back to the official 2005 BEA data. Thanks for your cooperation, (Eddie 23:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: This is incorrect.  The Adams-Onís Treaty signed by Spain and the US ended the claim of Texas from the Louisiana Purchase.  The Mexican-American War was a result of the annexation of Texas by the US and and the dispute about the Texas-Mexico border after the Texas Revolution. This is stated in article about Republic of Texas, and Florida. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.76.63.65 (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US kept the claim of Texas from the Louisiana Purchase till Mexican-American War? 

message: If you were to have more knowledge about your own state, you would know that there are 11.5 million people residing in the Houston and Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan areas combined (Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington has 6 million and Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown has 5.5 million) as of the July 1, 2006 estimates by the US Census. See list of United States metropolitan areas so you can add the figures for yourself. If you take 11.5 million divide it by 23 million (Texas population), you get 50 percent. —RJN 14:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: population of biggest cities

message: Portraits with the head looking to the reader’s right should be left-aligned (looking into the text of the article) when this does not interfere with navigation or other elements.  Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings [not first-level heading], as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. Instead, place the image directly above the heading. See WP:MOS#images. --Evb-wiki 22:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. BQZip01 02:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image placement 

message: Im rewriting the architecture section. It reflects poorly on the Texas article. "Architecture" is not about skyscrapers. That's a popular misconception. Having a section called "architecture" talking about our tallest buildings only reveals how little the author of that section knows about architecture. Architecture is like venice, the Taj Mahal, the Bauhaus, Kyoto Gosho, or Kharraqan towers. Not some tall building which will have no effect on our culture (and wont probably even be around) 50 years down the road.--Zereshk 09:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Architecture (again)

message: http://www.worldartantiques.com/Texas(A-K).html
http://www.io.com/~tam/Museums/museumlinks.html (texas association of mueseums)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Team#_note-0 (for cowboys "america's team")
sports has no mention of the college teams in texas.  the ut a&m rivalry the lone star showdown, or the Battle of the Brazos.  no mention of the big 12.  no mention of Texas Motor Speedway
Airports quote.  maybe a new page?  http://www.hotelstravel.com/cgi-bin/airports.cgi?s=Texas
could put criticism of healthcare in texas.  lowest insurance rate. etc. . . 
No mention of the  colonia's in texas.  they are a big deal.  according to the colonia's site, "Texas has the largest concentration of people (approximately 400,000) living in colonias on the U.S. side of the border"
could divide the history section into muliple parts like the Texas A&M site.  probably not as much as the history article, but three or four sections could do.  a pre colonial, spanish/mexican, republic, and us?
right now i am focusing on the a&m site. ill help here after that article becomes "good"  Oldag07 21:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: thoughts on my first read

message: Can we please add a state symbols box like California?  See this. Real96 06:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: State Symbols Box

message: Why is there no mention of the WNBA?  Texas has 2 teams, one in Houston and one in San Antonio. Missjessica254 18:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WNBA

message: I recently added Arlington to the largest metropolitan area in the infobox because it is the official US Census MSA designation. Although primary cities are included in other state infoboxes, I see no reason why we can't use the official designation for Texas. Postoak 06:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why Arlington continues to be removed from the infobox. The reason removed is that "it is not needed". Please explain why Arlington is not needed? There is no policy (that I'm aware of) that states that only two names of the MSA should be listed? I don't see any specific usage notes at Template talk:Infobox U.S. state that prohibits more than two city names for the metro area. Dallas-Ft.Worth-Arlington is the official name, what harm is there to use the offical complete MSA name in the infobox? [User:Postoak|Postoak]] 07:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the reason previous editors have left it out is because "locals" don't call it "Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington," just "Dallas-Fort Worth" or D/FW.  There's a lot of examples where the vernacular takes precedence over the official (Rhode Island and Providence Plantations?).  There's no harm, exactly, just common usage. Wyv 07:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure why Arlington continues to be added to the infobox. Like I said before, official MSA is not used in infoboxes. Florida's does not read "Miami–Fort Lauderdale–Pompano Beach", despite the fact that Fort Lauderdale is probably (not saying it definitely is, just from my perspective) more significant than Arlington by name recognition. You're right, it is not a policy, but it is based on consistency and common usage. It has nothing to do with only having two names; it is about being consistent in using a metro area's primary city/cities or otherwise common title. If MSA format will not be used for Florida, then we should be consistent and not use it for Texas.  Most metros have one primary city in the metropolitan area, but this particular one has two primary cities that are very common to hear together. But, it doesn't really have three primary cities.  If you need further proof, look to the Wikipedia page Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex (no Arlington, and that has been chosen as the primary name for the metro area) and the name of the airport, Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. Arlington is simply not on the same level as Dallas or Fort Worth in terms of name recognition, notability, size, infrastructure, etc., and that is why I do not think it is necessary to have in the infobox. Raime 13:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For another thought, we could use "Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex" rather than "Dallas-Fort Worth" or "Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington", as that is at least the name Wikipedia has chosen to call the metro area in its article name. Raime 13:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no specific rule or policy that states the official MSA is not used in the infobox. Since the official US Census MSA name does include three primary cities for the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington MSA, there is no reason why it should not match this designation in this situation. Please see the first line of the lead paragraph of the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex article which states the official name of the MSA (and also mentions that "Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex" is an informal name). Apparently the US government felt that Arlington is at the same level of notability when it included the city in the official designation, otherwise the MSA would be called Dallas-Ft. Worth. For the consistency and common usage arguement, the metro entry is found on only a few state articles (that I can find) so it isn't commonly used. Does its use in a few articles indicate standard usage for other articles? I will request a third opinion if you feel it is necessary. Thanks, Postoak 18:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a good argument, but I still do not feel it is necessary. Yes, it is an informal name, that is not up for question. It is commonly used, maybe not on Wikipedia, but in vernacular. (For consistency, I'm sorry if I poorly worded my comment, but what I meant was that it should remain consistent with the Florida and Missouri articles). Even if the link is not prevalent in many articles, the name was chosen, and that is significant in itself. Very few people I know would say "I'm from the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington Statistical Area"; "I'm from the Dallas-Fort Worth region" is far more common. The U.S. government does not use three equally notable cities when forming MSA statistical regions; one could hardly put Long Beach or Santa Ana at the same level of significance as Los Angeles, or likewise Naperville and Juliet with Chicago. Cities are put for reference purposes. Arlington may be primary in the sense that it is larger or more significant than other cities in the metro area, but it is not primary in the sense that it is not on the same level of notability as Dallas or Fort Worth. For the most part, I ould think that most Americans would associate "Arlington" with Arlington, VA, not the city in Texas with a large population but otherwise not very significant traits. An MSA would never use "Dallas-Ft. Worth" as a title, just as "Greater New York" would never be used; simply because MSAs must be extremely specific. However, these specifications do not really apply to an infobox: For largest cities, the boxes do not portray official names (i.e. "The City of Houston"), but rather the very common form of the name (i.e., "Houston"). I know that there is no specific rule, but still, being consistent with the Missouri and Florida articles (which have had their "largest metro area" designations far before I put the one in for Texas two days ago) would make sense. As for the third opinion, I have no problem with that, it is always a good idea to expand a debate. I took User:Wyv's comments to be a sort of third opinion, stating that the more detailed MSA official name wasn't necessary, but maybe you feel otherwise. Raime 19:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Postoak, I went ahead and changed it to "Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex". Like you said, Arlington is prominently listed on the page in the official title, so now anyone who clicks on the link would easily see Arlington as one of the largest cities in the metro area, even without it being listed on the infobox. Furthermore, this title uses common usage/vernacular, to be consistent with other states. Raime 19:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, this is good. Thanks, Postoak 03:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Largest metropolitan area in infobox

message: Listed as the Gulf of Mexico at a height of 0. The Gulf of Mexico is not part of Texas proper, it's a body of water outside the state. Can we get a real lowest point?
:Actually, the Gulf of Mexico, up to 10.4 miles from the coast, is part of the State of Texas.  In addition, the lowest point on land is where the land meets the water at the Gulf. Wyv 05:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that’s correct.  Also, per reference #1, The US Geological Survey puts the lowest point in Texas as the Gulf of Mexico see: .  The online Texas Almanac at  also  cites the Gulf of Mexico as the lowest point in Texas.  In order to avoid confusion do you think that  perhaps we could say “Gulf of Mexico coastline”?  or "Coastline at the Gulf of Mexico"? --Chicaneo 06:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that idea; how about "Gulf of Mexico coast?"  It's shorter and should fit better.  I'll add it and see if anyone changes it. :) Wyv 07:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lowest Point?

message: Why is it that Texas A&M's engineering and business graduate schools get their national rankings highlighted (14th and 29th, respectively), but the University of Texas at Austin's engineering and business graduate schools don't get any recognition - EVEN when they are ranked higher than A&M's? (11th and 18th, respectively)
Also, the article fails to mention many other distinguishing characteristics of the University of Texas at Austin (and the UT System in general), but Texas A&M receives recognition for their grants and when they 'opened their doors'.
It appears to me that someone was a little biased.
*Bias? It's possible. It's also possible that the editor was simply contributing what he or she could based on his or her knowledge of the subject. It doesn't really matter, though (so I choose to assume good faith), since you're free to add additional pertinent information to that or any other section of any other article. I'll import some information from the UT article later on. ~ João Do Rio 05:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still biased and obviously imbalanced. It appears that the education section is now devoted to two schools. What about the other notable universities in Texas?  The UT Austin and Texas A&M paragraphs should be condensed to one paragraph. We should add a paragraph briefly describing other notable schools in the state (ie Rice University, Texas Tech University, University of Houston, Southern Methodist University, Baylor University, etc.) Postoak 19:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced the unbalanced tag based on the above. There are other universities in Texas besides UT and A&M. Postoak 14:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure where to draw the line for inclusion of schools in the broad article re Texas, or how much info should be provided for each. (How about minimal?) There is already a link to List of colleges and universities in Texas provided at the top of the section and most of those listed have their own articles anyway. I've added some additional "promenant" universities, but I've probably missed a few, and the scope of what's "promenant" is debatable. --Evb-wiki 13:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education Section...written by an Aggie?? 

message: In the article, the RoT flag that is used is the first flag. I believe that we should change this, due to that the flag shown was only in use during Sam Houston's first term as President. Afterwards, in Mirabeau Lamar's term, it was changed to the flag that is still in use today. Because that the current Texas state flag was in use as the official RoT flag for the majority of the time that it was a country, I believe that it should be changed in this article to match the current day flag. --RandehMann 03:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the Republic of Texas flag 

message: Is it true the state was offered the option of splitting in 5 at statehood? What were the divisions?  Trekphiler 12:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. I learned about this last year. We are the only state that can split into 5 separate states if we feel like it. We still can, but I don't think that will happen. I'm not sure where the splits are, but trust me, us Texans are too caught up in being Texans to worry about splitting up. 70.113.85.225 00:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not predicting, just wondering. (I'm writing fiction, so a "5:1 Texas" was pretty interesting). And we're always thinking about splitting up, here... ;D Trekphiler15:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 30 flags over Texas?

message: Any info about what mean Texas, the etymology? --Bentaguayre 18:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See History of Texas#Indigenous peoples. That little nugget should probably be here as well. Kuru talk 20:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm making some research on this topic and just want to ask, did the spaniards conferred any other name to this state? aside from Texas? --124.107.248.94 09:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spain considered it as part of New Spain, and Mexico considered it part of Coahuila y Tejas. --Evb-wiki 12:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: Why doesn't this page have the Texas plege on it, I will add it--67.67.161.12 02:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pledge