Talk:List of ghost towns in Texas

message: I think we should revisit what a ghost town actually is.  Some of the listings here are just small communities, either started as small, or portions of the population saw opportunity elsewhere.  But people still live here. I would say a ghost town is an abandoned area, not one where the population changed but is still active. — Maile  (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thurber is described as a ghost town by Handbook of Texas which seems to be a reasonable source. I don't think the definition for a ghost town needs to be that strict (i.e., disqualifying it from "ghost town" status if it has a small handful of residents in the general area. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: What is a [[ghost town]]

message: I have removed Luckenbach from this list, as it's not a ghost town and never was.  It was still operating a school system in 1967. For more than the last half century, Luckenbach has been privately owned, operated as a for-profit tourist attraction. This is no more a ghost town than Disneyland or Branson, Missouri - same operation, just on a much smaller scale. It does have a TV-movie set aura about, but movie sets aren't real ghost towns, either.
Willie Nelson has had his annual picnics there; Waylon Jennings and Willie Nelson had a successful record album using Luckenbach as its basis.  Many artists have performed shows there, and recorded in the facilities. There have been annual chili cookoffs that draw people from around the world. Ghost towns don't generally produce monthly newsletters, as Luckenbach has done. It does not qualify as a ghost town. — Maile  (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luckenbach removed 

message: Loyal Valley is not a true ghost town, just a very small rural community.  It's always been a small community, but people still live there and work the land. — Maile  (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loyal Valley also removed 

message: Based on Zuehl, Texas, I see nothing that qualifies this as a ghost town. It is also an active part of a school district. — Maile  (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Zuehl 

message: I've removed others, and am going through one-by-one checking against sourcing. An active population, a school district, community activities, or any other evidence of an ongoing community, means it is not a ghost town.  Live people live there. — Maile  (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored Thurber based on the Texas Handbook source; a few others I looked at in that handbook don't mention "ghost town" so I'm fine with removing those. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, per your request on my talk page, I've halted my deletions for now. This list, however. does need to be cleaned up.  It's a big state - it's a big list, and it needs to be monitored now and then. — Maile  (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was concerned there was going to me more examples like Thurber (where we have a good source describing it as a ghost town); I'm not going to object if you continue to clean up the page, though I'd ask that you check the Texas Handbook to verify that it's not listed as a ghost town there (and it's not already sourced elsewhere on the page that it's a ghost town). OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give it some thought on doing it slowly that way.  Handbook of Texas is kind of my bible, so I'm glad you suggest it.  I started out just trying to source everything, and then went to Luckenbach being listed as a ghost town. And Loyal Valley, Texas, which I created, being listed as a ghost town. But I'll have a look. Thanks. — Maile  (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that source is questionable, especially since we already have better sources (namely the Handbook). I'm guessing that some of the material on ghosttowns.com is accurate, but it looks to be mostly based on user contributions. Might be OK to  list in external links, but wouldn't pass RS. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Or just remove.  Lots that should not be on this list. — Maile  (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  For questionable entries that are lacking a source, you could also tag them with a  tag. If we decided to purge unsourced entries later, that makes it easier. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So, what I'm doing, if I remove any at all, are the ones that look pretty clear to me are some that began as small communities, and still are, or similar situations.  I haven't been removing as many as I originally thought, mostly because it's probably better to just list the sourcing.  Once I make it through the whole list the first time, I really do think this will be more manageable if we break the table into smaller tables, still alphabetically listed.  That would make it easier for other editors to add to a group, or to edit existing listings. — Maile  (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Others 

message: I'm rechecking sources as I go. I just noticed one that was added due to what appears to be a questionable source - Ghost Towns.com. Based on this entry, it looks like that source doesn't even require a last name or documentation.  I think that source does not meet Wikipedia requirements. I've removed it, because Handbook of Texas entry does not say much more than it's a small town.  Please feel free to disagree. — Maile  (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that source is questionable, especially since we already have better sources (namely the Handbook). I'm guessing that some of the material on ghosttowns.com is accurate, but it looks to be mostly based on user contributions. Might be OK to  list in external links, but wouldn't pass RS. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:RS|Reliable sources]]

message: I'm coming across so many where neither the Handbook of Texas, nor the Texas Almanac classify them as ghost towns - but users edited the articles to say they are. Apparently, many are alive but have very small populations. There's so many, I think I'll just leave sourced notes, rather than delete them from the list. — Maile  (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Or just remove.  Lots that should not be on this list. — Maile  (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  For questionable entries that are lacking a source, you could also tag them with a  tag. If we decided to purge unsourced entries later, that makes it easier. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So, what I'm doing, if I remove any at all, are the ones that look pretty clear to me are some that began as small communities, and still are, or similar situations.  I haven't been removing as many as I originally thought, mostly because it's probably better to just list the sourcing.  Once I make it through the whole list the first time, I really do think this will be more manageable if we break the table into smaller tables, still alphabetically listed.  That would make it easier for other editors to add to a group, or to edit existing listings. — Maile  (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many iffy

message: Not now, but after I've had a chance to check all entries. The sortable table format is pretty good, but I'm starting to see the negative by constant scrolling up  and down while doing the updates. Maybe break up this long table into smaller individual tables in alpha order, more user-friendly for all editors. Especially for editors not experienced with tables. — Maile  (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps later break up table into alpha sections