Wikipedia talk:Texan Collaboration of the Year

	United States portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
	Texas portal This page is supported by WikiProject Texas.

Notes

Sweet. In inaugurating this page, I'll suggest a page that needs improving: Texas Rangers (law enforcement). While we're at it, we should probably create a disambig page for Texas Rangers... right now it directs to the baseball team, with a small mention of the law enforcers at the top. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:16, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Love it. Which should the Rangers baseball team be moved to: Texas Rangers (baseball), or Texas Rangers (baseball team)? Also, do pardon my ripping the "superscript my talk page" idea from your sig. Shem ^(talk) 09:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... there isn't really any precedent for this that I could think of. Most teams I've specifically looked at are Cityname Teamname and I can't think of another example that would be exactly the same as some other totally different entity... except this one. I would probably vote for (baseball team) although I'm not sure it makes a huge difference. Steal away, I did. The circle continues. ;) · Katefan0^(scribble) 12:40, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say leave Texas Rangers as the baseball team (since, aside of Texans, that is likely what most people would be looking for), but make a Texas Rangers (disambiguation) page that links to both. Or, I dunno, Texas Rangers could be the disambig. I'd vote for Texas Rangers (baseball) if forced to choose. --Myles Long 16:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure the baseball team is necessarily more well known than the law officers, since the team's name is derrived from the officers. I'd support making rangers a disambig, and move the baseball team to Texas Rangers (baseball) as that is generally the standard. Also, Shem what exactly is "we have more Texas pride than we do in the South." supposed to mean?- JCarriker 21:32, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, the baseball team's name didn't come out of the blue; make the main Rangers page a disambig, and move the baseball team to Texas Rangers (baseball). Also, looking at the DPS site [1], would the proper name for the Rangers (law enforcement) article actually be Texas Ranger Service or Texas Ranger Division, now? As for the latter sentence, do you disagree? I've never known a Texan who had more pride toward Florida-Georgia-Alabama-Mississippi-Louisiana than they did for Texas. It's a matter of how we're taught, I think; Texas History in junior high, that we "were once our own nation," memories of the Alamo, etc. Pride in "the South" usually focuses solely on Civil War history, whereas Texan pride covers a longer history as the backdrop to current "state pride." I know of no other state in the Union, save Hawai'i, with such a concept of "state pride." Shem ^(talk) 21:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's to say, I added that sentence as a pre-emptive answer to someone who might say "why don't you just go revive the 'Southern U.S.' collaboration instead?" to the creation of a strictly-Texan collab. Shem ^(talk) 21:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see this you mean no offense, I only wanted to be certain Texas' heritage as part of the South and Southeast will be as respected as its heritage as part of the West and Southwest. However, I do suggest you change the wording to be more specific and diplomatic. -JCarriker 22:31, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Definitely no offense intended. I hadn't realized it might even be taken that way, help yourself to re-wording, etc. It was really only meant as a placeholder text, when I first made the page. Shem ^(talk) 23:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should actually overhaul the main Texas article, first?

Just a thought I had, after looking at it. Shem ^(talk) 22:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It could definitely use it. But I tend to think that maybe we should start small, until we get our sea legs, so we don't bite off more than we can chew at first. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:25, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
- took the words right out of my mouth. -JCarriker 22:31, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Gotcha. So should those of us here just declare the Texas Rangers our first collaboration? If so, feel free to reflect such in the collaboration's templates (Template:Current Texan COTM, Template:TexanCOTM article, and Template:Texan Collaboration Notice). Shem ^(talk) 23:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Works for me. -JCarriker 05:20, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

All set up; disambig's already been made, and I determined that the correct name for the Texas Rangers was indeed the "Texas Ranger Division." [2]

Texas Ranger info

Does anyone have information about the one Texas Ranger that broke up the riot in Denton back in the 60s or 70s? I looked through some Texas Ranger links and didn't see anything about it. I think that info should be on this page since they have a "larger than life" image. I remember hearing about it and thinking "wow, one person broke up a whole riot!" Maybe I'm just dreaming the whole thing up? maltmomma 15:41, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I think that tale is largely embellished -- the Rangers like to say "One Ranger, one riot" because of some incident I think in the late 1800s... I can't recall details off the top of my head, but I think that the Ranger museum has some info on it. This would be a good one for the "Ranger mythos" section, seeing that the legend of the event has grown much larger than the actual event in terms of the Rangers' involvement... · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:55, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Next?

Well, I think maybe we've thrashed around on Texas Ranger Division long enough. No article is ever fully complete, but it looks much better than before I think and the improvements are mostly static for the moment. Shall we switch our attentions to something else? · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:40, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I think the Texas article should be next. It currently lacks a lot of information and pictures. The Texas article has too many lists and it clutters up the page. We should add information and move most of the lists away from the main page to their own articles. Let's make it look like the United States article. I like their format, content, and style. UH Collegian 16:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see the King Ranch or the Treaty Oak expanded. maltmomma 17:24, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'll go record your votes on the project page. Anybody else reading this, go vote! · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:55, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should mess with Texas just yet, I think the row over the college pics proves that reforming that page is going to be a massive undertaking. Other than the main article I'd say that Juneteenth and King Ranch were the most signifigant topics. However, I'm going to be busy over the next few weeks overseeing Hatshepsut's featured nomination, working on East Texas which is the next future FAC on my to do list, and cleaning up Marshall's subpages for when it will be on the main page in early August; so I wouldn't mind seeing a topic like Treaty Oak, which I know little about but find interesting, selected as the main candidate either. -JCarriker 21:07, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Anybody object to setting Aug. 1 as the date on which voting will close? · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:42, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

August 1st works for me. Shem^(talk) 19:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help

Marshall, Texas will be featured on the main page on August 3, this is the oldest Texas related featured article and the first since 1900 Galveston Hurricaine to be feautured on the main page. The Marshall article itself is near perfect- please don't touch; so I'm requesting assistance in making the the Marshall related articles at least look nice in Sites of Interest, Colleges and Universities, and Notable Natives etc.; ETBU and Wiley especially need work. I'd appreciate any help. Thanks. -JCarriker 17:36, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

The Strand

Apparently, there IS a stub on the Strand, it's just terribly named. Strand National Historic Landmark District. Could still use lots of work. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:11, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

King Ranch

OK folks, time to mosey on over to King Ranch and let the fixin' up begin. If you find yourself with a spare minute, let's see what we can do to make this article better. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:45, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I continue to work on Texas Rangers Division in the meantime? I'd reaaaally like to see that article Featured someday... - Shauri Yes babe? 19:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all! Please do, and I'll continue to help. It could still use quite a lot of work (including the criticisms hinetd at by DemonBurrito). · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:51, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Texas History Movies

I don't know about the rest, but what stuck with me from my Texas history in 7th grade came from a little cartoon book Texas History Movies put out by an oil company. We all seem to have gotten, for free, personal copies of what would be called anime today. My brother-in-law was so struck by the crudity of the text he asked for it, which I gladly gave.

So my question is "What company sponsored Texas History Movies?" It had a red and blue cover, with little cartoons inside to teach us.

Never mind. It's Mobil Oil. Texas History Movies ISBN 0-87611-080-4

Maybe it would be a fun article? Ancheta Wis 22:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Six-man football

Since West Texas is so sparsely populated, this variant of football is the rule in the smaller high schools; perhaps more could be said? --Ancheta Wis 11:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Call for votes

Of our current candidates, two are tied. How about we have folks vote on which one they'd prefer to tackle next? Anybody feel free to start it off. I've placed a voting section on the main page. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm not sure anymore how many of our old contributors are still active at the moment, let's have voting open through Sunday, and at that point we'll close it out and start workin'. Anybody object? · Katefan0^(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 17:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

University articles

What does everyone think of a future collaboration on University of Texas at Austin, Texas A&M University, and Texas Tech University? All three are fair to good articles that could use a great polish to push them to FA status. When we are feeling more ambitious, maybe we can try them? -Scm83x 23:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My inclination is to say sure, although sometimes folks get territorial about their schools. I think if we decide to go this route, we should work on the articles with caution, probably even announce what we're about on the talk page beforehand, lest we appear as carpetbaggers =) · Katefan0^(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 17:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. I know that people are touchy about their alma mater's page, generally. But if we make a comment on the talk page informing users that we intend to collaborate on the page, I think that we could actually gain a lot more people in the Texan Collaboration cause. Realistically, I think it will be the best way to add people to this group because of how many people no doubt have their alma mater on their watchlist. -Scm83x 17:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Up next: Juneteenth

See y'all there. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 06:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 2006

Hello fellow Texan Collaboration of the Month editors,
We have made some good progress with Texas over the past month. However, I am not sure if we have improved the article enough yet to contemplate nominating it for FA (or at least GA). I propose that we spend one more month on it before choosing a new topic.
I further propose that we archive the existing list of future candidate articles. Some of the nominations are quite old. I think we should take fresh suggestions during August for a new article to collaborate on in September.
I look forward to your thoughts. Johntex\^talk 00:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was there any discussion about nominating the article Texas for FA status? It would have been better to run it through peer-review or something similar before nominating. Can it be withdrawn before more time has passed? -Acjelen 20:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Biography

Let us know if you happen to pick an article on a person and we'll alert our members! plange 05:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October

Texas has been the collaboration for 2 months, and this page was just listed as inactive...So, I'm going to go ahead and change it to Strand National Historic Landmark District, which has the most aproval votes. Jo e I 19:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe - I think that's a good choice. I just looked at the article. It has some good stuff. It needs sourcing. Currently there is just one in-line reference. I'll work on adding some more. Given that participation in the monthly collaboration has been difficult to maintain, I think we should work on Strand until February and then try to pick a new article. Johntex\^talk 05:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month

I'm not sure if anyone monitors this talk page anymore but we have reactivated the US Collaboration of the Month and we welcome you to stop by and participate if you are interested. --Kumioko (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This project is active as the Texas Collaboration of the Year, which for 2013 is Lizzie Velásquez

Tramadul (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Nominations from prior to 1 January 2012 have been cleared away.{{subst:Unsigned|[reply]