Talk:Waco, Texas

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Waco, Texas article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 180 days

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

United States: Old West / Texas Low‑importance

	United States portal This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject American Old West (assessed as High-importance).
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as High-importance).

On 5 August 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Waco. The result of the discussion was not moved.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Flag of Waco, Texas.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Waco Horror Photograph

Strongly suggest to remove the photograph of Jesse Washington's remains. Photographs depicting violence and dead bodies are controversial and disturbing. This photograph adds nothing to the article's main topic, the city of Waco Texas, and it's shocking to see it in this context. There is a dedicated article on the lynching of Jesse Washington, where a reader might expect to see such a photo. 104.153.230.40 (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this recommendation. An essential piece of history but a graphic and shocking image to encounter witout warning in an article about a town's geographic history. 2603:7000:3701:C083:C469:B4CB:DAB9:A865 (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes more is less. I'd agree to remove the image. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

so ... do we simply remove it or do we have to bring it to the attention of the original author? I usually only make minor edits like typos (OK, like *correcting* typos ;-)) so I am hesitant to do it myself. Gonesoft (talk) 05:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the original author is watching this article, they would have commented here. There seems to be a consensus to remove the image. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should stay. Integral to the history of the city.Aneirinn (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Waco siege

It mentions the speculation about the fire starting from agents shooting into the tear gas filled rooms, a theory that is countered by evidence. No mention of the official version. That strikes me as not objective. Compare with introduction to the main article. Gonesoft (talk) 05:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 August 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved per snowball clause . (closed by non-admin page mover) – Material Works 17:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Waco, Texas → Waco – Waco currently redirects to the page, it would be more concise. Aneirinn (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move per WP:USPLACE. O.N.R. ^(talk) 08:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per O.N.R., it's clearly the most famous Waco but only the largest cities escape the gravitational pull of this naming convention. Killuminator (talk) 11:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:USPLACE. It could also be questioned if the city is primary as Waco (miniseries) has 10,233 views compared with 17,675[[1]] for the city. That said the miniseries is from 2018 and its name is based on the city so the city is probably primary by long-term significance. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As others have stated, this falls under the WP:USPLACE guideline, as also explained on Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Remove state from US placenames. The main takeaway is basically this: a majority of reliable sources published nationally in the US will usually first refer to this city, like most other US cities, as "Waco, Texas", appending the state as if it was common usage in American English, before later referring to it as "Waco" like it was some sort of abbreviation. And always appending the state produces a consistent and predictable set of titles (see also WP:TITLECON), because repeated or otherwise ambiguous placenames are very common in the US, and thus most would require disambiguation regardless. The only cities that do not seem to have this peculiar convention seem to be those 28 or so cities (like Houston, San Antonio, and Dallas) listed by that AP Stylebook. But take almost all other cities in Texas, and nationally published reliable sources would still refer to them as "[X, Texas]" regardless of any unnecessary disambiguation here on Wikipedia. Furthermore, as Crouch Swale pointed out, Waco (miniseries) may have an equal claim at primary topic status. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The miniseries has no claim to that, if anything else it should be the Waco. Aquabluetesla (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (strongly) per WP:USPLACE. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:USPLACE. I see no reason to change this longstanding article titling convention. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are plenty of other Wacos in the USA alone. JIP | Talk 23:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On principle, I agree. However, this [City], [State] form is never likely to be be dropped in the case of American cities. It's too deeply entrenched in the American psyche (leading to such ridiculous descriptions in America as London, England; Rome, Italy; and Paris, France; which we all have to endure every time we watch an American film which is set abroad, leading to us shouting at the screen, "what other *&#%ing Paris is there?!") and on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah Life After People kept on mentioning "London England" even though you would have though it would generally be unnecessary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If you don't like WP:USPLACE, then WT:Naming conventions (geographic names) is where you start a discussion. 162 etc. (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

All images with the "Flying W" are protected by trademark and copyright.

Anyone adding City of Waco logos or images containing the Flying W, including that of the City Flag are in violation of Wikipedia policy. The City of Waco has not given anyone permission to do so, except for this account which is paid by the City of Waco to do so.

For the record, City Council Members do NOT have the authority to grant permission for anyone else to perform image updates. WebmasterWacoTX (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can take the copyright matter up on Commons; see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seal_of_Waco,_Texas.png for the appropriate notices. This account, WebmasterWacoTX, is a so-called "role account" and is now blocked as such. More information/relevant links are in the block notice on the user's website. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the discussion is happening -- slightly -- over on Commons, for anyone future who wanders onto here, it ought to be made clear that it's well-established (as Houston found out) that municipalities (and states and the Federal government) are forbidden by the Lanham Act to assert trademark protection over their flags, seals, or other insignia. It's certainly worth keeping an eye on this page; if the City of Waco is sending its employees to try and bully Wikipedia based on a right that they do not possess once, it's not a stretch that they'd do it again. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

waco 2601:206:857E:1450:A17A:B0D3:40AD:82B2 (talk) 05:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]