This is an archive of past discussions about Fort Worth, Texas. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
There's no doubt that the Tandy Center Subway is an interesting piece of Fort Worth trivia, but should something that ceased to exist almost three years ago be called an attraction? Perhaps the article needs a new section for trivia/fun facts/etc. for this and other neat tidbits. - Thatdog20:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. I've been trying to think what other trivial facts could be included. maltmomma 20:38, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Here's some:
Four of the subway cars are preserved in storage by North Texas Historic Transportation, Inc.
(www.NorthtexasTransport.org)
A fifth car still operates in Dallas on the McKinney Avenue Transportation Authority (www.mata.org).
The only remaining streamlined car is currently undergoing restoration for static display at the Leonards Museum at 200 N. Carroll Street in Fort Worth.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.9.8.21 (talk • contribs) 6 April 2006
I rewrote the lead paragraphs entirely (now has three paragraphs with more information), formatted the article, and added a new infobox with the official logo of Fort Worth. I think we should transform some of the lists in this article into proses. Currently, there are too many lists and few proses. Just a suggestion. RJN20:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
If someone can find an image of the seal of Fort Worth, please upload it or put it on this talk page. I want to make a city infobox for Fort Worth and I need a seal to complete the infobox. Thanks! – UH Collegian05:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
You know, I've lived in Fort Worth most of my life and don't remember seeing a city seal. I did a quick search and couldn't come up with anything. There is a new city flag, do you have that? Here's the link - http://www.fortworthgov.org/cmo/pio/citypage/2004/cp2004706.asp#3 I'll email the city and see if they have a seal. Surely they do. maltmomma 19:29, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Got a quick response. Emailed the city and here's what they said: "Yes, our City Secretary uses it on all official documents, but because it is official, it is not available for purchase. You can come to the City Secretary's office to see what it looks like if you like or they might be able to send you a photocopy although I am not sure that is legal. You may want to check with them at 817/392-6150." I'm sure a picture of it is somewhere. All the other cities have theirs available. Hmmm, I can try calling them later. Gotta run now though. maltmomma 19:43, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Fascinating! I always assumed that Miss Molly was the only "seal" Fort Worth had since I've never seen anything else on civic forms. I hope they let you get a copy because I can't wait to see what it looks like! - Thatdog19:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm still trying to get a picture. I've had a couple of road blocks but hopefully I'll be able to get one. maltmomma 20:36, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
The flag as portrayed in the sidebar is incorrect. It is a logo that is in declining use among several municipal services (most noticably the police force, but new cruisers do not use the logo). The official flag is located at the City's Web site, but the site has no copyright disclaimer. Can we consider this fair use because it's material released by a local government? Caknuck05:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that flag was discontinued two years ago. From the June 9, 2004, Star-Telegram:
"Tuesday, the council approved a new official city flag design. The new flag will be white with the image of Molly -- the longhorn depicted on the front of Fort Worth's Livestock Exchange Building -- and will include "Fort Worth" in dark blue letters. The city's old flags -- which were multicolored, striped and featured a stylized drawing of a black steer head -- will be retired by sundown July 3." Does anyone know where to find a good graphic of the flag? All I can find is this: http://www.fortworthgov.org/cmo/pio/citypage/images/FWLogoFlag.jpg Thanks, Dmp34803:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I was able to verify the flag was officially changed at both the Fort Worth government page, as well as the page for the previous flag's designer. I reverted the flag image back to the previous logo image, as that is more accurate, at least until a good hi-res version of the new flag is uploaded. Caknuck01:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth, formerly known as Carswell Air Force Base, a major military installation adjacent to northeast Fort Worth, and a major contributor to the local economy.
First, the base is in west Fort Worth (could be considered northwest I suppose but certainly not northeast).
Also, would you say it's adjacent to Fort Worth or in Fort Worth?
Very new at this so please excuse me if this is the wrong place for this discussion or such...Thanks.
According to the Southern United States article, Fort Worth is the second-largest city of the largest metropolitan area in the South. This is important (it could also fit under trivia) and should be incorporated into the article. --Stallions201022:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Lets kick this article up a notch.
This article looks like every other city-related article I've seen, pretty much bland except for statistics and tourist attractions. Could we possibly write a sub-section about the Bass family? I could go check out one of the books about them from the Fort Worth Central Library this week and reference it. I mean, they own the entirety of Sundance Square, as well as most of the skyscrapers, I don't think you can mention Fort Worth without the Bass's. Kade19:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd recommend doing separate articles instead; there's already a Sid Bass article (with link to a nonexistent Perry Bass one), and I could see doing a "Bass family" article since there's apparently not *one* centralized Bass company. (Along the same lines... I'm off to start a Sid W. Richardson article -- I'm surprised there's not one already!) -Hedgey4203:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
One important attraction missing is the annual Mayfest event. It's essentially a fund-raising festival for non-profit organizations that runs for four days in early May. Why is this significant? Not only is it an economic bonus for the city, but the 1995 Mayfest storm is considered to be one of the worst (if not the worst) storms in North Texas history. This storm may be important enough to justify its own article; it produced large hail that sent 90 Mayfest attendees to the hospital; from there the storm cells went on to spawn tornadoes and create flash floods that killed 13 people in and around Dallas. Some relevant web links include the Mayfest Website, a university paper on the event, a storm chase report with photos and WFAA's Wild Weather Week for 2005. -Eccl.7.1218:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Fort Worth
I have proposed a WikiProject for Fort Worth. Please show your support by going here and adding your name to the list of interested Wikipedians. To improve the quality of this and other Fort Worth-related articles, I believe it necessary now for this project to exist. Dallas, Texas, although not yet a featured article, is of signficantly higher quality than Fort Worth's article is. Thanks! Stallions201001:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Southeast, NOT southwest
I'm not saying Fort Worth is within the Southeastern United States region, but it is located in the southeastern part of the country (personally I don't see it as being part of the Southwest though, it's part of the South). Lebanon, Kansas marks the geographic center of the continental United States. Fort Worth is located south of Lebanon, as well as east of it. Look at the coordinates of the two cities. I am reverting the southwest reference now that proof has been provided. --Stallions201021:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
We are not talking solely about geographic regions, rather accepted cultural names for regions. If "the west" only starts west of Lebanon,KS then we need a new name for the Midwest. The stock show is the "Southwestern Exposition Livestock Show and Rodeo". The city slogan is "where the west begins." I think it is pretty safe to say that Fort Worth is in the South-Western united states. This is especially so if we want to talk about population density of the US, or cultural influences. -- Diletante18:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
>>Once again though, as noted on the Texas page, the term "Southwest" when referring to Texas denotes something quite different in history, culture, traditions, etc, than in states like New Mexico and Arizona which are also labeled "Southwest." As the term applies to areas west of Ft. Worth within the Lone Star State (with the trans-pecos being an exception), the term Southwest is pretty much synonymous, in the above mentioned criteria, with "Western South" (this is the label used in Raymond Gastil's classic work "Cultural Regions of the United States").
>>Also, as mention on the larger "Texas" talk page, this is almost certainly how the early settlers would have thought of it, as the city's moniker "Where The West Begins" was never intended to mean anything like "The South Stops here." Anymore than St. Louis "Gateway to the West" meant one was leaving the Midwest. LOL Point is, the "West" was not thought of as a single coherent cultural region per se (and it still isn't today), but simply a largely unsettled half of the country different in many ways from the "East."
>>In fact, most of those early cattle barons were former Confederate soldiers, and what the nickname really was intended to impart was that Ft. Worth was a Boom Town entryway to a new part of the larger South itself, one of new opportunities and all...the "Western South" if you will (to use that term again!) as distinguished from the "Old South" of cotton plantation country. Again, most of those early Ft. Worth newcomers, the overwhelming majority of whom were migrants from the southeast looking to get a new start, brought with them their basic culture and folkways and, being in a former sister Confederate States, never thought of themselves as being out of the South per se. In fact, some records, and ads and such in early newspapers will often have references to something like "The Dixie Cattle Company" or whatever! LOL -- TexasReb20:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Transportation
Is there any particular reason why Transportation is a subheading of Economy? It seems like Transportation should be a heading of its own. - Thatdog 3 July 2005 02:53 (UTC)
Disagree.
Is there any particular reason the largest employers in town are missing? Hello! American Airlines; Lockheed Martin Aeronautics. At least a link, heh?
209.78.197.402:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)20:23 11/14/2006, Tue
This article needs a huge makeover. Our primary goal, as of now, is to get the article to good article status. I have created a to-do list at the top of the talk page. Some items on the list may seem alarming, such as removing the "Districts" section and transferring valuable information to a new subsection (see to-do list for details). Please do not delete any items on the to-do list; rather, after completing the task, strike through the completed item. You may add to the list as you please, but please make sure your new items are reasonable. See Wikipedia:To-do list for guidelines and more details. For ideas and/or helpful information, you may refer to these Wikipedia articles about American cities:
I have been thinking that it might useful to add a government section in this as well as other articles. Such information might include: the type of charter the city has, key positions within the city government mayor etc. Some of this information might deserve its own article over time. Any thoughts or ideas? --Robert Harrisontalkcontrib20:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. The section is coming soon. It's a bit surprising that this is being replied to nearly two years later. --Stallions201023:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've lived here in Fort Worth 38 years and I've never heard it called that nor have I heard of it called that outside of the city. Maltmomma(chat)16:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I had never heard of this either, but I just punched fort worth funkytown into Google and apparently its true! Bizzare. Thatdog17:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I have lived in Fort Worth my entire life and I have known exactly one other person who calls Fort Worth "Funkytown". He told me at the time that I worked with him that the term was popularized in the local/regional rap and hip-hop scene. I do not know if that assertion is true. As to if it should be included in this article, I shall remain silent. --Robert Harrisontalkcontrib04:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe put this information under trivia since it's not a widely known nickname plus the fact that other cities use the same nickname and it is more widely known in those places; i.e. above referenced numbers. There are 124,000 hits on Google for Cowtown Fort Worth and it is more widely known. Maltmomma(chat)13:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I have never heard it called Funkytown. Just because the Fort Worth Weekly calls it that in its MUSIC SECTION of all things doesn't make it true. I'm going to change it. Also, I don't know about you guys, but aside from a few walks through Sundance Square, who actually goes clubbing in Fort Worth? If Fort Worth is Funkytown, what does that make Dallas & Deep Ellum? Kade19:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I have a feeling many of you are older Texans/Fort Worth citizens. "Funkytown" is a nickname of Fort Worth. Do a google for "funkytown fort worth". It's right there. --66.190.72.17500:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Is there any information to verify this statement? "In more recent years, east Fort Worth has been referred to as "Funkytown" as well, mainly by urbanites. In the last two decades of the 20th century, when the Blood and Crip gangs started migrating from California, east Fort Worth was often referred to as "Murder Worth" or "Little Chicago", as hundreds of bodies started showing up with insufficient amounts of evidence required to bring those responsible to justice, thus increasing the murder rate. East Fort Worth has since then changed, as the size and skill of the police force has rapidly increased." I worked on the city contracted ambulance at the time and I don't remember there being 100's of murders nor the names it was called. I do however remember when the gangs started moving in to the area. Maltmomma(chat)21:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I lived in the East Side for most of my life. I've heard of it being called "Little Chicago", but it is also known as "Stop Six", "Polywood" and etc. I'm not sure about Crips being in that area because they were mostly on the southside, but I know most of my neighbors were Bloods. It's been called Funkytown on a regular basis if you all would listen to the radio where it is more popular with the younger generation. The best information to verify is first hand experience. You should take a trip down Rosedale and find out for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.237.135.136 (talk • contribs) 11 October 2006
First hand experience is not enough,WP:VERIFY we need a reliable source that documents that fw is widely known as funky-town. Hip-hop stations do indeed use the moniker funkytown, as far as I can tell it is only the hip-hop stations though. I have a feeling that any city/town that starts with an F has been refered to as "funkytown." Maybe the section should mention something about hip-hop culture (anyway I like F-dub better :D) Diletante17:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
This whole section seems somewhat awkward, esp. "as hundreds of bodies started showing up with insufficient amounts of evidence required to bring those responsible to justice, thus increasing the murder rate." "Hundreds of bodies" seems particularly unlikely as in 2005 the number of reported murders was only 52 and the highest count in the past 6 years was 67 in 1999. (http://www.fortworthpd.com/crimestats.htm) And would the murder rate have been lower had those responsible been brought to justice? Bignona11:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Uniform Crime Reports and Index of Crime in Fort Wort in the State of Texas enforced by Fort Worth Pol from 1985 to 2005
I have lived in Fort Worth since 1956. I was told by my uncle that the name Funky Town was given to the city of Fort Worth by people who visited, moved or traveled through the city in it's early existence. Fort Worth had two packinghouses Swift and Armour along with Resin Chemical Company operation that processed and slaughtered cows.The companies were located on the cities north side of Interstate 35W presently known as "Old Downtown Fort Worth, the stockyard area. The processing operation was the major contributor of the funky smell that caused vistors to ask "What's that funky smell?" The packinghouses closed in the late 1960's and the smell has ceased to exist. userslmonfay 70.255.228.9800:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The famed "sleeping panther" story needs to figure in here somewhere – "Panther City" is still occasionally used as a nickname for Fort Worth (even by some businesses), and there are a couple of different statues in the city linked to it. – Hedgey4205:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Paschal High school in Fort Worth that I attended has their mascot as the panther. As well as having a panther statue. You can find out in their library.Bigjohntexan (talk) 10:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I have added some history on panther use as a city mascot. We need better sources such as the Dallas Herald Archives. Paschal is but one of many high schools that use the panther mascot among which include central, western hills, fossil ridge. Perhaps a note in the panther city section would be in order shawnmyers (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Skyline picture
Would anybody like to post some of their favorite skyline pictures of Fort Worth? We can choose which look the best and post it. --Jayson (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Economy
Moved to talk because it is just a list of arbitrary companies that happen to have offices in Fort Worth, doesn't have citations, and a bunch are redlinks so not notable. Let's replace this with a decent article on the economy of Forth Wrth instead of an uninformative laundry list.RJFJR (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Headquarters of AMR Corporation and American AirlinesMontgomery Plaza mixed-use building in Fort Worth near the Cultural DistrictChesapeake Energy building in Fort Worth
American Airlines and AMR Corporation are headquartered in Fort Worth.[1] American finished moving into its $150 million (1983 dollars), 550,000 square feet (51,000 m2) facility in Fort Worth on January 17, 1983; $147 million in Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport bonds financed the headquarters. The airline began leasing the facility from the airport, which owns the facility.[2]
The Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce has complete info on area employers, including companies headquartered in Fort Worth:
Fort Worth is also home to Texas Ballet Theater.
Employing 38 professional dancers and operating two ballet academies serving 300 students, Texas Ballet Theater remains a vital component in the vibrant Texas arts community. As the largest, critically acclaimed, fully professional, resident classical ballet company of North Texas, the Ballet serves more than 100,000 individuals from the diverse communities across North Texas. Originally incorporated in 1961 as Fort Worth Ballet, the civic ballet troupe transitioned to full-time professional status in 1984. By the end of the 1990's, the newly renamed Fort Worth Dallas Ballet had made a name for itself on the national and international stage. To ensure continued artistic excellence, the Ballet’s Board hired preeminent artistic director and choreographer Ben Stevenson, O.B.E., in 2003. Additionally, leadership in Dallas and Fort Worth joined together in an historic partnership to provide the only arts organization in the Metroplex for two cities, Texas Ballet Theater. The goal was to give both cities a world-class company of the caliber unachievable by either city standing alone. Texas Ballet Theater's $7.3 million budget ranks it the second-largest professional ballet company in Texas, behind the $20 million Houston Ballet, and among the top seventeen largest American companies in the nation, according to Dance USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.163.77 (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Population estimates
The lead says that Fort Worth's population is project to grow to 1.2m by 2030, but then 4.3m by 2050?!? You can't grow by 3.1m, nearly quadrupling your population, in 20 years. I know it already says citation needed, but can that be removed just by common sense?
--Alexseattle (talk) 08:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
It took 40 years to double the tri-city area's population at a much lower rate of growth, so it's a high estimate but certainly possible. Psychokinetic (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Professional Sports Teams
Is it just me, or is there no data in the Professional Sports Teams section?
I do not know how to fix the table, nor do I know what should be in it. Psychokinetic (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Demographics
I recently found under dempgraphics it said a percentage of the population were "Black or African-American" I thought this was a little too inappropriate for wikipedia's standards, so I changed it too "Dark-skinned or African-American. Hope I helped an was on no inconvinience. Thanks, 124.177.189.177 (talk) 10:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
altitude?
Fort Worth is listed for being 653 feet, which is 7 feet short of a full furlong, yet it is listed as 216 metres. Either one of these is incorrect. --83.108.28.194 (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
these sort of uncyclopedia sentenses are more common on wiki than what one would think. I even was on an article about Ban Ki Moon. I believe I read his parents are poofters and that he is an awful awful man. --82.134.28.194 (talk) 09:11, 8 December 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: Moved to Fort Worth, Texas, this is a case where there has been no compellingWP:AT argument(s) to leave title at Fort Worth that outweighs the compelling argument of WP:USPLACEMike Cline (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Fort Worth → Fort Worth, Texas – Per WP:USPLACE, the only US cities that do not need the state name in the article title are cities listed in the AP Stylebook. Fort Worth is not one of these cities and therefore should have the state name in the article title. Relisted. Discussion still in progress. Favonian (talk) 11:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC). Dough487200:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Support. The guidelines on WP:USPLACE has historically been heavily debated, regarding which cities get the state modifier, and which do not. The last time it was heavily discussed was an RFC archived here. The so-called "AP Stylebook" rule is the current compromise. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose the guideline recommends articles be disambiguated, but it doesn't mandate it. Fort Worth isn't ambiguous, so it's not needed. I would also note that HJ seemed to leave some wiggle room in the aforementioned RFC close about establishing additional cities not on the AP list. Fort Worth seems to fit that bill. Hot StopUTC15:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
But this breaks the precedent we follow for every other city in the United States. Cities are commonly referred to as "City, State" in mailing addresses and the media. If we leave this page where it is, we mind as well move Hatboro, Pennsylvania to Hatboro since that is also unambiguous. Dough487215:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, no one's going to do that. Ft. Worth has a population of 1.2 million. The town you linked to has a population of 7,000. Hot StopUTC15:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I still think the AP stylebook guideline is a fair guideline to follow. Otherwise, there will be the constant moving of pages for unambigous places, leading to inconsistent titles for articles. Dough487215:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Austin could refer to Stephen F. Austin. And to your first point, there isn't enough of a driving force to move articles for smaller cities (like the one you gave before) that we would devolve into thunderdome as your suggesting. Hot StopUTC15:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Support -- no benefit to the reader to ignore the rules here. Barring such a benefit, follow the guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Why should U.S. towns be done differently than those of other countries? There are problematic names like "Springfield" or "Madison", but this isn't one of them. The AP guidelines were created to explain names for newspaper readers. If you search or click for the name of a certain town, you must already be familiar with that name. The title should be the name of the subject, not its mailing address or a description of where it is located. Kauffner (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Do you advocate all U.S. places that are unambiguous have the state name dropped? If so, this will lead to a huge inconsistency in article titles. It is consistent to have all U.S. places not in the AP stylebook to have the state name as that is how they are often referred to by non-locals. Dough487204:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Re to Kauffner: because each country has (or can have) its own titling style. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names): "In some cases, including most towns in the United States, it is conventional to add such a tag even when it is not strictly needed for disambiguation purposes." Australia and Bermuda (among others) follow this too. This is the wrong venue to change those guidelines.-- JHunterJ (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Again, the guideline recommends they follow the convention. There's some leeway there. Hot StopUTC18:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Support. I agree with following established policy and guidelines when there is no reason not to. It is trivially easy to follow them here, with no disadvantage to anyone anywhere. Many readers outside the US are not confident about the meaning of "Fort Worth", or even about the category to which the referent may belong. So there is a positive advantage in the proposed new title. NoeticaTea?22:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I think that every place name needs to be disambiguated, regardless of what country it is in. This will help the reader better indicate where a place is. Major cities whose locations are widely known may be excepted. Dough487223:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
When we title our articles we strive to make them recognizable to our readers from the titles, but recognizable to those who are familiar with the topic, not to those who are not familiar with the topic. Striving to make all articles recognizable from title alone to everyone would open an incredibly large and smelly can of fish. See WP:CRITERIA. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
A bankrupt idea that very obviously lacks consensus. It is well to note here that an ArbCom case has just concluded, precipitated by Born2cycle's insistence on that line. Every effort to establish a genuine, fresh community consultation to test the issue was sabotaged, in favour of the same old voices offering the same old hermetically sealed arguments. There is no reason to believe that the present recognisability provision enjoys wide consensus: just narrow consensus from a small coterie of enthusiasts who hold to an algorithmic approach ignoring the information needs of real people. In its final decision ArbCom warned Born2cycle, with these words:
Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors.
There are indeed other voices, and they should be heard. They could not be heard while the agenda and rules were set by the present vociferous occupants of WT:TITLE. We can only hope that conditions will now become more favourable for new titling principles to serve readers, rather than serving the abstract imperatives that drive computer scientists – I mean, those lacking a sense of how an encyclopedia needs to communicate with its readers, wherever they may be and whatever their informational priming may be.
REMINDER: The idea here that Noetica is calling "bankrupt" is reflected in naming policy (under recognizability), and he and others who disagree with it have been warned by Elen of the Roads that they'll be blocked if they try to remove it from policy again. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
No. I was not named; and I had left the page weeks before Elen's very welcome but temporary measure to stop shifts in the contested wording – because of threats and actual wikilitigation from Born2cycle, who here gives a distorted account. I was the one who called for Elen of the Roads to monitor things, since she already had dealt with Born2cycle in earlier troubles at that policy page (and also with the sockpuppeteer Pmanderson, a major ally of Born2cycle at WP:TITLE and now totally banned for a year, and MOS- and TITLE-banned indefinitely). Anyway, this is not the place for discussion of this sort. Let Born2cycle start one of his customary ad hoc pages, to have his say. Myself, I have no more to add; but I might still correct misleading statements where they occur. NoeticaTea?22:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Towards the end of the recent ArbCom action, there was a flurry of editing activity, maybe in anticipation of a possible prohibition on rapid cycling of policy pages. When the music stopped, Born2cycle's opaque "recognizability" wording had been left in, although I never saw any discussion of it. Now it seems tailor-made for defending these impossibly long titles. Neotarf (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
You never saw any discussion of it? In addition to countless MB of discussion and less formal polling, there was this poll which clearly favored the wording unanimously, and when the page was unlocked for editing, Elen announced the wording (which you call "Born2cycle's opaque "recognizability" wording") could be restored, and anyone who reverted it would be considered to be edit warring: "The minor change in wording that has been discussed to death can be made, and I will regard a reversion as edit warring."[1]. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, that. Yes I saw that. A word count of 88,954 words, but no one could answer Elen of the Roads' question about why a title needed to be "recognizable". And of course the sock of the banned user was all over the place too, making up bogus polls and cutting off any attempts to discuss the subject more deeply--the exact opposite of what consensus is supposed to do. The whole thing left a very bad impression on me. But what can I say? As a n00b, I'm still trying to get my head around WP:IAR. Neotarf (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
It's possible that there are other editors who agree that "recognizability of a title to readers who are not already familiar with the topic is not a goal, and should not be used as an argument in favor of a title", as I put it in my attempt at a poll to see. But I didn't find anyone agreeing to that. This would be a good time for them to speak up if so. Dicklyon (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
After I saw that disastrous poll from the banned sock, I ran into WP:poll which is short, and worth reading in its entirety. It makes the points that polls can 1) miss important points or objections by limiting solutions to a fixed number of arbitrary choices 2) be divisive and cause people to merely choose camps 3) cause people to expect that a majority vote will automatically win an argument, instead of fostering consensus. But yeah, it seems to me that even Born2cycle backs away from making titles more "recognizable" when he has the chance to add Stuff to them. That tells me he's using some other criteria for naming. Maybe that's the place to start -- what principles are actually important. Neotarf (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
You seem rather confused about who's who. No banned sock did any poll, and B2C has never hesitated to make titles less recognizable; he never adds "Stuff" to them, but removes stuff to make them more concise. Dicklyon (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Dicklyon for recognizing and acknowledging the consistency in my position of favoring the principles of WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and concision over adding unnecessary precision to article titles (principle: if an article is the unique or primary use of its most commonly used concise name, that name should be the title of the article). I agree Neotarf seems confused, though to be fair we are talking about a situation so confusing even Arbcom struggled with it (and I still think they never got it straight). --Born2cycle (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Dicklyon, I'm referring to the "poll" linked to above that starts out "The result was that there is overwhelming community consensus in support of this version of the WP:AT, which bears this edit summary: 23:56, 23 January 2012 JCScaliger (talk | contribs) (40,869 bytes)" followed by a personal attack on one of the editors that I'm not going to repeat here. The sock is JCScaliger/PMAnderson. And if I was the editor attacked in the link, I would be extremely annoyed; it would not put me in the mood to collaborate with the person who posted the link. But my point was not "who's who" or revisiting something that Arbcom has closed; I don't think those are helpful discussions. I do find it interesting that in spite of the "recognizability" baggage, Born2cycle prefers titles that are concise. Neotarf (talk) 06:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, one of the many editors that favored the recognizability wording for which that poll indicated overwhelming community support is PMAnderson. But the poll was not from him - it was from Greg L.
What do you mean by the "recognizability" baggage? Why do you find it interesting that I prefer titles that are concise? The community prefers the wording that limits recognizability to those who are familiar with the topic; that's consistent with keeping titles concise; to avoid additional precision that is unnecessary. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. The title is fine where it is. There is only one Fort Worth, and this can and should be clearly proclaimed by having the article's title be its undisambiguated name. Adding the state to the title obscures this fact and is adding unnecessary precision to the title. Back when this convention was adopted by a handful of editors and a bot, years ago, adding unnecessary precision was more common, not only for cities in other countries, but many other kinds of articles too. Since then, disambiguate only when necessary has become more prevalent in WP naming, practically dominant. City names in Canada and Australia, for example, are no longer unnecessarily disambiguated (for the most part). Even names of royalty are now much more apt to follow common usage than strict adherence to WP naming patterns. There is no good reason to keep the city, state convention for U.S. cities in general, nor for this article in particular. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes. I don't see why titles of articles about smaller towns in the U.S. with unique names should be treated any differently from titles of any other articles about relatively obscure topics with unique names. Hatboro, Pennsylvania contains unnecessary precision; it should be at Hatboro. The topic of that article is primary for Hatboro. This same argument is used to name the majority of the articles in WP; there is no reason it should not be used for these articles too. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
In answer to Born2cycle: See my remarks above, but note also that WP:USPLACE is an established and consensual guideline. It serves the needs of readers across the world – especially those outside the US. Let us respect that consensus. If anyone contests it, let it be challenged at the relevant talkpage. Otherwise, let it be implemented. Indeed, let it be implemented for French Quarter also, which is glaringly non-compliant with WP:USPLACE. Same for very many similar titles. Fitting with the parsimonious principle for recognisability that Born2cycle mechanically and doggedly appeals to, they systematically mislead readers. We need to think again, starting from the world as it actually is.
WP:USPLACE has never had true consensus support - it has been contentious (varying degree from quiet period to highly contentious) throughout its history. While there has never been consensus support to overturn it, there has also been only a slight majority of those participating in favor of keeping it. This is what happens when a convention contradicts normal naming practices on WP. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
"Never had true consensus support"? Well, let it be contested at the relevant talkpage. Meanwhile, it is there to be applied. Just like WP:TITLE, in its present parlous state which by no means represents "normal naming practices on WP". Those are yet to be stabilised though wide consultation. NoeticaTea?22:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Anyone who doesn't know about Mardi Gras, Easy Rider, or the French Quarter has to be living under a rock. No, "French Quarter" should should not be changed for the six people in the known universe who don't know where it is; it is in the same class as "Woodstock". Fort Worth is not. Neotarf (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
But Hamamatsu, Doolin and Whyalla are no "French Quarter"s or "Woodstock"s either; they're not even Fort Worths. But there they are. Is that a problem? How well known a given topic is has never been a criterion to consider in deciding whether to add more precision to the title. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Whyalla, Australia? No province name? But of course it's not recognizable to someone who does not have a map of the place tattooed on their left kneecap, or whatever, unless you tack some more information onto the title. Neotarf (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Right, and yet myriads of countless places with unique names like that, in Australia, Canada, Ireland, England and all over the world, have just the name, undisambiguated, as the title of the articles about them. We do not add precision to those titles increase their recognizability. Why should we treat US cities with unique names, like Fort Worth, any differently? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment. The purpose of a title is to tell the reader the name of the subject, what it is called in the real world. I concur with Born2cycle that adding anything else to the title subtracts information since this practice obscures what the actual name is. Cities of the United States, The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, and Britannica give the name of this city as simply "Fort Worth". Our article title is "Fort Worth". No one has suggested that the name is anything else. That should be the end of the story. Kauffner (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
This is a major city with entries in Britannica and other established reference works. There is no excuse to be making stuff up here. Someone else can worry about Hatboro. Kauffner (talk) 07:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes Kauffner, the city has an article in Britannica. The article is indexed and retrieved under the name "Fort Worth (Texas, United States)". Find that entry here; and see the first item found in a Google search on Britannica "Fort Worth". Britannica meets its obligations to its international readership admirably, by supplying such helpful information for the reader (and Google) to work with. Does Wikipedia? If not, why not? The Wikipedia equivalent of the Britannica indexing system is the list compromising all Wikipedia's article titles. Kauffner, should we or should we not emulate Britannica? NoeticaTea?10:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
These software issues take us pretty far afield from the subject at hand. On Britannica, the parentheticals are a navigation aid. The title of their article is simply "Fort Worth." Something similar has been proposed for Wiki: A "reduced size" feature that would allow a parenthetical to be put in smaller type. We could then add an explanatory remark to the end of each title. The smaller type would make it immediately obvious that these remarks are not part of the name. I certainly have no objection. I do not find Britannica`s parentheticals to be useful myself, although I am sure there are readers who benefit. In any case, such a technical fix may help resolve these endless disambiguation/primary topic disputes. Kauffner (talk) 11:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Those are not "software issues", Kauffner. They are how information is presented to users, prospective or actual. You say that the title of the Britannica article is simply "Fort Worth"? That is not certain. The simple unadorned phrase occurs as a header above the article, yes. But that's more like the start of a Wikipedia lead section; it is not closely analogous to any feature at Wikipedia. On Google and in the Britannica index, the title appears as "Fort Worth (Texas, United States)". Helpfully, and doing no harm. See also the results of an internal search at Britannica on "Fort Worth": the first entry is "Fort Worth (Texas, United States)". Helpfully, again. NoeticaTea?22:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
At the bottom of article, they give the citation form: ' "Fort Worth." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2012. ' So the short form is the official title of the article. Several years ago, there was only the short form. The parentheticals were added as part of a software upgrade. Kauffner (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Noetica, the page you have linked to is a disambiguation page. To distinguish it from "similar" entries like "Fort Worth Zoological Park" and "Dallas-Forth Worth International Airport", or more probably, as a form of internal advertising, since the other entries aren't at all similar. If you click through to the Fort Worth article itself, you find the title is an unadorned "Fort Worth". Neotarf (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Let's get this right, shall we? Britannica works its titles and its indexing differently from Wikipedia. The title of an article there is not such a well-defined entity as on Wikipedia. Here is a reductio ad absurdum: We should emulate Britannica's level of precision in its article titles; Britannica uses "Melbourne" alone as the title for Melbourne, Australia and "Melbourne" alone as the title for Melbourne, Florida; therefore, Wikipedia would be justified in doing the same. Wrong! Our system is structured differently, and no conclusion can be drawn from what appears on actual article pages at Britannica. Far more relevant is what you find in result pages for searches there, like this for "Melbourne" and this for "London". See corresponding searches on Google for Britannica content: Melbourne site:www.britannica.com and London site:www.britannica.com.
Let's get literate and analytical about these things, folks.
Support – the current WP:USPLACE guideline seems reasonable here in supporting recognizability and precision, especially for a name that could also be a fort or a ship, when we want the topic to be recognized as the city. As for Kauffner's argument, it seems clear that the city is widely known as "Fort Worth, Texas", in addition to "Fort Worth"; see the postcard in the article. Dicklyon (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Support. There are enough American towns named "Fort" that were originally established as actual forts that I doubt if many people have trouble identifying "Fort Worth" as a town. As an American who has probably driven through the town at one time or another, and may or may not recognize it if I were to drive through it again, I appreciate being reminded of what state it is in (and as the article reminds, that it is better known for being part of the Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan area). But quick, where is Fort Leavenworth? Fort Knox? Every schoolchild has heard of these (American schoolchildren, that is) but who can say what states they are in? For those who already know that Fort Worth is in Texas and google for it that way, there is a redirect. For everyone else, the state should be in the title. Neotarf (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I forgot the population stats for Fort Leavenworth. Let's put them in the title too. The highway exit number might be useful as well. Kauffner (talk) 08:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Ha, ha, but no, I don't favor long titles, they slow down the search process because the eye can't take them in quickly. This one I think is short enough to parse with a glance and not as annoying as the others. It's a tradeoff, but I'm somewhat sympathetic to our neighbors in Oz who say they are still trying to figure out where things are. The fact that there is so much comment on this RM and not on, say, "and yet it moves", is that this is a somewhat borderline situation. There is something wrong with all the choices, and the task is to choose the one that is the least objectionable. In the end, whatever is gained by moving it probably isn't worth the effort it takes to accomplish the move. Neotarf (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, you never read any complaints about Canada on these pages, do you? -- I mean, that their naming conventions are too Canadiocentric, or anything. Here WP:Canadian_wikipedians'_notice_board/List_of_settlements_at_plain_title is how they handle disambiguation of city names. Now it seems to me that Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, or Improvement District No. 349, Alberta, or West Nipissing, Ontario, would be just as unfamiliar to the rest of the world as Fort Worth, yet no one seems to mind that the name of the province is not in the title. I'm beginning to see why Kauffner objects to WP:USPLACE. Maybe it's time to talk about whether title naming conventions should be consistent across the project. Neotarf (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this is the point I was trying to make with my examples, like Whyalla. Why do we treat US cities specially? I would support any effort to make the naming conventions more consistent with each other. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:PRECISION. Acknowledging WP:USPLACE, I find it a matter of rule primacy, and WP:PRECISION is a part of WP:AT, which I find superior to WP:PLACE. I appreciate points about this not being the place to address policy change, however from my perspective, I am applying established policy, which unfortunately conflicts. I would note, re WP:USPLACE, that I am concerned about asking editors to refer to an outside source, AP Stylebook, when functional and systematic rules are already internally available here, but since such a debate is appropriate elsewhere, I only make this statement as an indication of my position, and hopefully consistency. Further regarding my position, having Hatboro, Pennsylvania at Hatboro seems acceptable to me, which again I only state as an indication of my position on related matters, rather than with intent to debate the point here. I do value consistency, but given the inevitably dynamic nature of the grand project that is WP, I also accept some variation in the pursuit of the ideal. ENeville (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
But having the state name in the title aids the reader in telling them what state the place is in. Also, that is how the mail and most media sources refer to a place, large or small. Also, having the state name in the article title leads to consistent titles for places across the US. If we were to drop the state name from unambiguous places, the article titles would be inconsistent from one town to another. Dough487201:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
It's not as bad as you seem to imagine. After all, that situation -- article titles would be inconsistent from one town to another -- is true for city articles for almost every country other than the U.S. (where the city name is disambiguated only if it needs to be disambiguated from other uses in WP), but the more general situation is true for almost every article in Wikipedia (again, only disambiguated when necessary). See: User:Born2cycle#Examples_of_naming_consistency.
In fact, I suggest it's useful to have Fort Worth and Paris, Texas. This tells us that Fort Worth is a unique (or primary) use, while "Paris" is ambiguous. If we move this article to Fort Worth, Texas then users won't know from the title that "Fort Worth" is unique, and worse, there won't be any easy way to obtain this formation. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I still favor the convention of having the state name in the title as these cities are often referred to with their state name by non-locals. Wikipedia is supposed to cater to a global audience. Dough487203:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
And cities like Fort Worth are often referred to without their state name by non-local global audiences as well. So it's a wash based on most of our naming WP:CRITERIA, but one form clearly wins on one criterion: the title without the state clearly wins on conciseness. That breaks the tie definitively. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Support This has been discussed to death (hello again, Born2cycle), and the consensus always comes out that U.S. city articles should include the state, except for the thirty cities cited in the AP Stylebook as not needing the state. Fort Worth is not on the list [2], so the article should be moved to Fort Worth, Texas where it should have been all along. This is known as deferring to a reliable source. It's also known as following Wikipedia guidelines. Those who want to change the guideline should discuss it at a more appropriate place, not try to sneak in a change of the rules via an article talk page. The only relevant argument against this move on this page would be if someone thinks that Fort Worth, alone among American cities, should be exempt from the existing guideline - and nobody has presented an argument based on any uniqueness inherent in Fort Worth. --MelanieN (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
This move ought to be uncontroversial, because there is a consensus-based guideline at WP:USPLACE (despite your many attempts to change or undercut it). This title violates that guideline; the proposed move will bring it into compliance. There have been no arguments presented here about why this particular city ought to be allowed to continue to violate the guideline; all of the arguments against the move (including yours as usual) are against the guideline itself and should be discussed in another venue. In the meantime this title ought to be brought into compliance - lacking any evidence or even any argument why Fort Worth should be an exception to the established guideline. --MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
P.S. And yes, I have read your FAQ on the subject. I am sure it resolves the issue to your complete satisfaction. Now can we get back to discussing the issue at hand, which is Fort Worth? --MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Support; when sources outside of Texas refer to this city, they very often append the state name for clarity. We should do the same, as doing so satisfies the Recognizability, Naturalness, and Consistency criteria spelled out at WP:AT. PowersT14:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose the AP style guideline may be a useful starting point but we should not follow it rigidly. A guideline that we should is actually US-centric, since for readers outside the US the fact that a town is in the US may be more significant than which of the 50 states it is in. This assumes that non-US readers are familiar with the names of all 50 states in the US, which many will be, but by no means all (although I expect most of them will have heard of Texas). PatGallacher (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Not much more to add, besides that this case provides a useful counterexample to the AP Stylebook that calls to attentions the limitations of that approach. It's relatively rare for US cities to have unique names. When they do, the state name provides no disambiguative value in the article and ought to be excluded. Why not just tack ", United States" onto the end of every city name? --BDD (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Is the current title ambiguous? To some extent, yes. With that in mind, can this article be considered the primary meaning of the term? Undoubtedly. Ergo, no further "clarification" of the title is necessary. USPLACE recommendation to append the state name makes perfect sense when a title needs to be disambiguated anyway (because that's precisely the way names of places in the US are traditionally disambiguated), but is completely redundant when the title is unambiguous to begin with. The shorter the title, the better, and I'm yet to hear a good reason to the contrary. Oppose.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 5, 2012; 19:59 (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.
Came here to point out that the history section is lacking. It jumps from around 1910 to 21st century info. What happened in the meantime? How did Forth Worth grow into its current state today? There's some info given about cattle routes and travel routes that is suggestive, but not definitive. 68.67.92.208 (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Non-encyclopedic language in the lede
Overall the article seems in very good shape, but some of the language in the lede (and elsewhere throughout the article) seems like insertions from the Chamber of Commerce or something, and I can't find citations for it. I'd recommend rewording some of this content if not outright deleting it. For example:
"Located in North Central Texas, the city is a cultural gateway into the American West" - who calls this a cultural gateway to the American West? Where is this an established fact? It would be one thing to say "it is commonly called" or" It is sometimes known as" and then present some sources in the body....I cannot find any reference to this in the article. This is a promotional poster sort of phrase being presented as an objective fact. It may not be wrong, but needs sourcing.
"Today Fort Worth still embraces its Western heritage and traditional architecture and design.[11][12] - First, the language sounds like a travel documentary; secondly the links do not support this (or lead to anything relevant/working.
"Fort Worth is home to the Kimbell Art Museum, considered to have one of the best collections in Texas, and housed in what is widely regarded as one of Texas' foremost works of modern architecture". - considered/regarded by whom? No references here or in article, and I'm sure many of the more presitgious collections in Texas would beg to differ. If it's widely regarded, it should be referenced as such. Again, this over the top language sounds promotional, not encyclopedic.
"Also of note are the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth and the Amon Carter Museum, the latter of which houses one of the most extensive collections of American art in the world, in a building designed by Philip Johnson." - again, no reference for hyperbole about extensivity.
Throughout the article there's a other large blocks of text without reference, making specific claims. See "History/The Town", and a good deal of "History/Panther City" (which should be greatly shortened given its disproportional length and made less chaotic...it seems a collection of random facts) specifically.
If no one has any comment on this I will attempt to clean this a bit myself, but thought I'd put it out there for long time editors to consider first. 204.65.34.128 (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Funkytown and Gangs in East Fort Worth.
Only young (under 30) people call Fort Worth Funkytown and only because they want it to be like other cities known for their music (and not just hip hop). If you've every hung around Austin, you know why it's call Funkytown. If this page is truly about history and not part of Fort Worth Weekly's "vote for the best", someone change the page to mention the real historic nicknate, Panther City. And "Murder Worth", "Little Chicago" - goes along with the person saying there were 100s of bodies when the entire city murder count wasn't 100. And what's this about gang population elevating in the mid 80s and disappearing in the 90s in EAST Fort Worth. Maybe citywide there was a gang population increase but not JUST in EAST Fort Worth (which includes more than Stop Six and Poly). Someone change the history page to facts - delete all the nonsense obviously written by a wannabe gangster pining over their childhood.WendyVann18:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I am in my mid thirties and am a Fort Worth Native. A white guy and not a gangster wannabe. All my life I have heard Fort Worth known as Funkytown. Not just Panther City. The name came from the meat packing plants for the smell and was later revived as a nickname in the 70's from the bars and clubs on Hemphill. The Panther City nickname came from the panther population that was there in the begining of the city on the Trinity river bluffs. Not from the sleeping panther story. And the gangs are in more than in the east side. They are on all sides. The east, south, west, north, and there are even asian gangs in the ne in Haltom City which is part of Fort Worth. And if there wasnt a gang problem there then why would the Fort Worth police have a official gang task force? I grew up in south central also known as the medical district and my family has deep roots there so I have heard it all from my family. And the matter of Stop Six and Polywood(not poly) and Berry Hill in the south having gangs is a fact. Just because someone doesnt want something mentioned doesnt mean it wont be history. Just as with Hells half acre that will go in the history books. Obviously the suburbanites need to get out a little more and go to more than downtown and the stockyards. Stop through Stop Six and try some real cooking at some of the small resturaunts there. I have and it is well worth it. Bigjohntexan (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I am in my 30s, also heard it called funkytown my whole life, I am not a gangster wannabe, but it is a fact that we did have hundreds of bodies during the gang times 1985-1995. 1986 we had 202 reported murders and a bunch of missing people. in the summer of 93 there was like 70 gang related murders just in the summer. look it up, I remember how bad it used to be, there were drive bys all the time. so that 2005 stat is not a correct representation. it is part of fort worths history how bad things were back then, I still remember it. its part of everyone who grew up heres childhood, at least my generation. its also part of fort worth history how they cleaned things up so much, making fort worth a safe, very safe city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.23.188 (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
2014 lawsuits
I recently added a new subsection titled "2014 lawsuits" which noted the lawsuit against the city for damages to a resident's house. I used three different sources to support my add but the sources have different dollar amounts for which the resident is seeking for damages. One source says $35,000 and another says $50,000. I'm not which dollar amount to use. What does everyone else think? There is a significant $15,000 difference between the two so I want to be as accurate as possible. Let me hear your thoughts. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I deleted your addition. First, a minor lawsuit (and regardless of which amount you use, these are minor suits), does not belong in the main history of the city. Second, not sure this type of lawsuit even deserves a mention in the article at all. I would hold off on re-adding it, until you see what other editors think on this talk page. If the consensus is to add it, then it should go in the Law/Government section. In regards to your question about the amount, in an instance like that, verbiage such as "lawsuit in the amount of between $35,000-$50,000" was filed... or something like that. Onel5969 (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
@Onel5969: Alright sounds good. I was going to suggest moving its location to a different section if the content were to keep. Let's see if other users can reach general consensus. Thanks for the help! Meatsgains (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
@Meatsgains: Okay. I think the edit was very well researched and cited, I am just unsure the suit is noteworthy enough to include anywhere in the article. But having said that, I don't have strong feelings against it either. I think I would support it, if there were more evidence than just 3 similar suits, that this was a pattern in the city. As it stands, I think I would have to oppose its inclusion as not noteworthy. But let's see what type of response other editors have. Cheers. Onel5969 (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Fort Worth, Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
@Onel5969: The title should definitely be reiterated in the lead. The 3rd bullet point says "if the title has a parenthetical disambiguator, the disambiguator should be omitted in the text". It's clear that "Texas" isn't the disambiguator in the title (aside from not being parenthetical), as Fort Worth redirects into this page and is accepted as the predominant of the term "Fort Worth". Either that, or perhaps the page should just be moved to Fort Worth over the redirect.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Prisencolinensinainciusol - first, and on a completely different subject - the "ping" doesn't seem to be working. I only noticed your comment since this is on my watchlist - thought you might like to know. Second, you quote the second half of the third bullet point, and ignore the beginning, which states, "When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form..." and therefore the Texas is redundant. I can think of not a single other US City which does what you suggest (and I watch about 200 of them). Take it easy. Onel5969 (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I'm taking the guideline too literally, but in the example given the page title United Kingdom is expanded into "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" in the lead. The title on this page is contracted into just "Fort Worth" for whatever reason. If redundancy is of any concern, on the United Kingdom page the the terms "Northern Ireland" and "Great Britain" are both mentioned and linked later in the paragraph.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I think that's the reason that different countries have different guidelines for their cities. For example, Canada has a different set of guidelines than US Cities. I don't deal with many international cities (I would like to, but the US Cities just simply takes too much time as it is), but a checked a few: Cardiff, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Düsseldorf, São Paulo, (Boa Vista, Roraima), (Mendoza, Argentina), (Orange, New South Wales), among others. I can't find a single example where the lead sentence includes the state/province/etc. Onel5969 (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
BTW you quoted the third bullet point from WP:LEADSENTENCE. Apparently you didn't see the fifth bullet point, which says "Remember that the title of the article need not appear verbatim in the lead." --MelanieN (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Looking at other prominent U.S. cities in Wiki, I see it is common to not repeat the title. It seems to make the reading flow easier this way.Tron1763 (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
History section
The History section needs a lot of work, mainly because it does not follow summary style. I think the entire section on Hell's Half Acre (which pretends to be about Panther City) should be deleted per WP:UNDUE. It's not even really that important to Fort Worth history. Would anyone else help out with moving info to History of Fort Worth, Texas? I've added quite a bit of info there, but it still needs work in terms of completeness. — Feitlebaum (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the Panther City section is way too long and makes Fort Worth in the 19th Century look terrible. As a lifelong resident of Fort Worth, I felt insulted by this. Can it be shorted and cleaned up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seeker alpha806 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I have just modified 4 external links on Fort Worth, Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 5 external links on Fort Worth, Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 4 external links on Fort Worth, Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 4 external links on Fort Worth, Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 3 external links on Fort Worth, Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The current flag pic is really, really bad. Like, you can't really tell what it looks like. The article would probably be better off with no flag then with the washed-out, you-can't-see-it picture. Anyone care if it's removed? MostlyTexasArticles (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
