Talk:West Texas

message: Why was Amarillo deleted as a city in west Texas?  Perhaps Amarillo considers itself in the panhandle yet not in west Texas, although Lubbock proclaims itself to be in west Texas and has far more in common geographically with Amarillo than it does with Midland or Abilene.  Please explain/discuss. -- Yellowcard47
:I agree with the above.  Amarillo is one of the main West Texas cities, and its removal from this list ignores the critical geographical and cultural realities of the state.  It should be added to the list of cities.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnycohiba (talk • contribs) 17:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it because it appears in the Texas Panhandle article. So, which region of Texas is it in? From what I've heard, people of Amarillo tend to refer to the city as being in the Panhandle but they do not exclude the idea of being in West Texas as well. The Amarillo article states the city is located in the Texas Panhandle. It never refers to it being located in West Texas. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I do not believe that West Texas and the Panhandle of Texas are distinct and separate regions.  That would be like saying western Colorado and the Rocky Mountains are also distinct regions.  I'll go with the premise that it is possible to be in one, but not the other; however, I believe that consensus would be that the entire panhandle is within the scope of western Texas.Yellowcard47 (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If, as you say, consensus is that the entire Panhandle is within West Texas, then they shouldn't be treated as separate regions on the template and its associated articles. However, as long as they are treated as separate regions, then decisions have to be made as to where the cities should be placed and Amarillo belongs in the Panhandle, not in West Texas. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Historically, the Panhandle and West Texas have always been considered seperate (if not overlapping) geographical divisions.  It isn't a matter of my opinion or your opinion, it is a matter of historical geography and is well documented.  Injecting anything else because you or I disagree with history is the defacto definition of NOT maintaining a Neutral Point of View.  As to western Colorado and the Rockies....they are distinct.  Over 30% of the Rockies are in Canada and about 20% are in Colorado.  Wyoming has more square miles of the Rockies than Colorado, so the terms "Western Colorado" and "Rockies" are not interchangable.  Again, neither my opinion nor yours changes the historical facts and accepted geographical regions.  PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Coming in a little bit late to the discussion I know, but I think the fact that West Texas A&M University, in Canyon, TX (~30 miles south of Amarillo) has the name that it does implies that there is a strong inclination to call regions far into the panhandle "west Texas."  These are colloquial ideas, so I think some people consider all of the Panhandle part of west TX, while others consider it distinctly the panhandle.  If Amarillo is not "in" west TX, then you should probably add to the West TX A&M article that the university is not actually located in west TX. Buddyholly41 (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Ecologically, the Panhandle and West Texas are definitely distinct and separate regions. the Panhandle falls into the Kansan biotic province, while West Texas is in the Chihuahuan biotic province: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_mp_e0100_1070ae_08.pdfMmyers1976 (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amarillo 

message: New readers, please read discussion of Amarillo above.  Some questions to ponder:
I started a new header because this changes the topic.  Is there a uniform standard for the regions of Texas?  If so, what are they?  If not, what should they be?  In light of this discussion, does the Panhandle region belong as separate from West Texas?Yellowcard47 (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See above.  This isn't a matter for a vote.  The geographic regions have already been defined by the US government, the State of Texas, and a few centuries of history.  How this is "debateable" is beyond my comprehension.  You are welcome to produce citations that clearly demonstrate your point of view, but your point of view alone is considered Original Research in the face of insane amounts of documentation available that demonstrate the two regions are considered distinct geographical and historical areas.  PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Without compelling evidence to change it, my vote is to leave it the way it is now. →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

text: In addition to the geographic regions being defined by US and Texas governments, ecologically, the Panhandle and West Texas are definitely distinct and separate regions, and well delineated. Amarillo falls into the Kansan Biotic Province, along with the rest of the Panhandle, while West Texas is in the Chihuahuan Biotic Province: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_mp_e0100_1070ae_08.pdfMmyers1976 (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The preceding remarks are mostly abject nonsense. There's no distinct place called "West Texas" - numerous illiterate hillbillies' references to such notwithstanding - just like there's no "West Oklahoma", no "West Kansas", no "West Connecticut" nor any "West any other state" except for West Virginia. There is, however, a western Oklahoma, a western Kansas, a western Connecticut, a western Oregon - there are western portions of every state in the Union, including Texas. If necessary one can even refer to far western Texas. But there's no "West Texas" - no matter how many hillbilly-published sources you care to cite.108.71.113.129 (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  West Texas/Panhandle of Texas 

message: This article needs a map similar to those in the articles North Texas, East Texas and Central Texas (namely, one with the relevant counties shaded in red). :Image:TexasCountyMap.png can be used as a starting point. - dcljr (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree but don't know how to go about doing it. Casey (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map needed 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :West Texas's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "factfinder2.census.gov":
From El Paso, Texas: 
From Laredo, Texas: U.S. Census Factfinder 2010 Population estimate for Laredo, Texas
From South Texas: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:West Texas]] 

message: Why did you delete Abilene and San Angelo 47.220.169.36 (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abilene and San Angelo