From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleDallas was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 16, 2005 Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 21, 2006 Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 29, 2006 Good article nomineeNot listed
September 20, 2006 Good article nomineeListed
October 16, 2006 Peer reviewReviewed
October 26, 2006 Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 28, 2007 Peer reviewReviewed
October 19, 2007 Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Topography

The Topography section states that elevations in Dallas range from 450 to 550 feet. However, in Google Earth it is possible to see that there are elevations above 700 feet in extreme southwest Dallas, near Joe Pool Lake (west of Clark Road and north of Danieldale Road). It's hard to be sure from Google Maps and Google Earth, but I think this area is within the city limits of Dallas. However, there are clearly many places within the city limits of Dallas that are above 600 feet.

White Flight - specific citation needed

"Dallas's population was historically predominantly White (non-Hispanic whites made up 82.8% of the population in 1930), but its population has diversified due to immigration and white flight over the 20th century." This statement makes no sense. From 1930 to 2020 the white population of Dallas grew by +60%. That's the opposite of evidence of white flight. A factually correct section would read something like, "Share of white population decreased due to domestic and international migration." Yourmomsofat ( talk) 12:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Population decline

Does anyone have a source for the sudden population decline of Dallas from 2020 to 2021 mentioned in the statistics? Bjoh249 ( talk) 02:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Inefficient housing market during lockdown, according to D. Sam Kuru (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Dallas being the core ???

Hi @ TheLionHasSeen: same person who removed this I have a static IP. Where is there a reference saying Dallas is the “core” of the “core based statistical area”? Seems like silliness. The core is defined as a built up urban area as can be seen here on page 6 according to the us census bureau [1] 2607:FB91:787:8D7E:318A:EAED:D4D6:749B ( talk) 23:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 123/Monday, June 28, 2010/Notices" (PDF). US Census Bureau. Retrieved July 28, 2023.

Enclaves

Is there anyway that someone can change the map so that it shows that University Park, Highland Park, and Cockrell Hill are enclaves of Dallas? NintendoTTTEfan2005 ( talk) 01:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Vandal

A vandal replaced all starting collages of Dallas with Norm MacDonald (26378045703).jpg. Their username is 162.238.229.91. Please block them before even more vandalism 209.150.51.65 ( talk) 13:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Dallas population statistics (opening sentence)

We've got Soetermans and Cerebral726 here saying that Dallas shouldn't begin with population statistics. This is absurd, there are many cities with population statistics in the beginning including Fort Worth. Additionaly, even if examples aren't good, I'm at a loss as for why Dallas is better off as a "city" in Texas instead of as the third most populous city in Texas or the ninth most populous in the U.S. Please clear the confusion, thank you. Cleter ( talk) 19:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. A city, a place, exists on its own, not just in relation to others. Take a look at the difference between the revisions: the lead is the summation of the article, the very first sentence of the lead is summation of the summation, the elementary core of the article. In your revision, in that sentence the first link presented is List of United States cities by population, and ends with mentioning Houston and San Antonio. The previous revision is similar, but it puts Dallas as its own first, before mentioning Houston and San Antonio. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply
And why should Dallas be on its own? My argument of other cities having population statistics in the beginning is not invalid, it’s an example of how many cities have the common statistics, and why should Dallas be an exception? I understand if we first included Texas statistics instead of U.S. I don’t need a lecture on lead articles, I know what I’m doing. Cleter ( talk) 19:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Dallas's most defining features are that it is 1) a city 2) in Texas 3) that is populous. Placing the cart before the horse by stating the ranking of the population of the city in the context of the whole of the US before establishing it's essential definition is not as strong a lead sentence, and is the reason I reverted you. Other articles may look different, that's the nature of Wikipedia. Fort Worth could possibly be improved, but that's not particularly relevant to this discussion. Cerebral726 ( talk) 20:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply
That makes no sense, Dallas is not bound to just being a city, it’s important to highlight the population of it in context just like any other U.S. city. There’s no way you just said that’s Wikipedia’s nature, you’re avoiding the problem almost entirely. Go edit Fort Worth and see what happens. Cleter ( talk) 20:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply
It is important, which is why it is in the following sentences. Cerebral726 ( talk) 20:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply
With your talk page history in mind, do you know what you're doing though? Because pointing to another article is WP:OTHERSTUFF, which isn't an argument as far as Wikipedia is concerned. There are hundreds, thousands of articles, with their own structure. For instance, Big Bear City, California doesn't mention its population statistics in relation to Sugarloaf, California. Tombstone, Arizona, Sioux City, Iowa or Anchorage, Alaska don't start off with regional population statistics either. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply
I still think population statistics in the lead of the Dallas article can provide valuable context for readers. Also, stop bring up my talk and focus on this, you’ve put me on blast enough. Dallas's status as the third most populous city in Texas or the ninth most populous city in the United States is a significant aspect of its identity and can help readers understand its scale and importance. I know that WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a definitive argument, but it’s not invalid to compare similar city articles. I believe that including population statistics in the lead of the Dallas article is appropriate given its significance. Regarding your examples of other city articles, I would argue that Dallas is the THIRD and NINTH most populous city in Texas and the U.S., respectively, unlike others without a big pop. Dallas’s population size is a defining characteristic that needs to be added and recognized. Thanks. Cleter ( talk) 20:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply
It’s more important than you think, which is why it is in the lead sentence. Cleter ( talk) 20:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply
If you're saying "I know what I'm doing", you're opening yourself up to an appropriate answer. I won't bring it up anymore, but do you remember Sergecross73's bit about consensus though? If you want to see something changed, you need a new consensus. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Why do you think I’m here? Because I want a consensus now, I understand what I did was wrong. I said I know what I’m doing because I thought I was confident knowing Dallas needs a population mention in its first sentence. Cleter ( talk) 20:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Not taking a side, but just a thought - is this really such a big deal? My understanding is that the info is still there, just slightly later on in the intro. Is that so bad? I think these editors are just saying "let's define the subject first before we jump directly into giving out stats on it". Sergecross73 msg me 21:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply
But isn't the point of Wikipedia talks to come to an agreement on how to improve articles that many people will view? Also it's common for cities to have stats. Cleter ( talk) 23:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm not saying "don't come to an agreement/consensus". It was more of a "it's not a big deal either way because both versions convey the exact same information, just in a slightly different order." Sergecross73 msg me 00:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Ohh, I understand. Well, my version makes the article shorter and more brief as compared to not including statistics in the beginning. Also I apologize for saying "who this", that was kinda informal. Cleter ( talk) 00:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Alright, well, as is, you're a bit stuck - you've got 2 editors opposed, and only you supporting it, so you don't have a consensus to make your change as is. You've basically got 2 options. One is just to wait a bit and see if anyone else adds their stance in. Or you can neutrally groups like related WP:WIKIPROJECTs, to see if you can gather any other participants to give a stance. You have to be careful with this though - you can't WP:CANVASS people. As in, you can't go "Hey guys, comes support my cause!" It has to be more neutral, like "Hey, we have a dispute and we're hoping you would participate in it". Sergecross73 msg me 18:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Gee I mean I guess it really isn't that serious, and the matter is 2 to 1... sure I'll wait a bit. What about if we keep the topic for 2 weeks? If nobody supports my cause by then, I'll come to a consensus to keep the article as it is. Additionally, if more people oppose it, then we can close the talk even earlier. But if more people support my cause, we'll cross the bridge when we get to that. Sounds good? Cleter ( talk) 03:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Sounds good. Sergecross73 msg me 14:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Welp, it seems like no one cares.... ok we'll keep it as it is. Ⓒ𝕝乇тᵉⓇ ( α ɯσɾԃ?) 20:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Climate

I think we should highlight somehow, the city has a very short winter. And most days throughout February and March has a daytime temperature above 22.

kind of bordering a tropical climate. דולב חולב ( talk) 06:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

See Talk:San Antonio. PAper GOL ( talk) 08:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Dallas&oldid=1211463104"