Talk:Georgetown, Texas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cleaned up Founding[edit]

I modified the Founding section a bit, just because it wasn't terribly well-written. I think it could possibly use a bit of expansion, though. Does anybody have any ideas to help out? Palironsat 23:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. Thanks for noting the discrepency. Austex • Talk 01:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Southwestern University, Georgetown, TX[edit]

On TX-29, at the entrance of the campus, is a large stone marker proclaiming a pre-statehood date for the founding of Southwestern University; a Wikipedia article on Southwestern University states it was founded in 1840. Yet this article on Georgetown gives the date as 1873. With these discrepancies, one must wonder what else in the article needs closer scrutiny. Chica del Chuco 14:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Short description of edits[edit]

A great number of (especially recent) edits to this article have no descprition of the edit. PLEASE use the short description box just above [savepage] button to enter at least a brief comment describing the edit. Such as "added reference to courthouse construction date," or "changed date to 1911", etc. Austex • Talk 12:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Public Education[edit]

Can someone please write material on the public schools? It is a HUGE obvious ommission and not my expertise. Austex • Talk 01:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why listed as "Advert"?[edit]

Just curious to understand why the advert tag was placed on this article. It is similar to hundreds of other city articles and not overally grandiose. Some feedback on the topic would be helpful. The editor who placed the advert tag apparently does not respond to my repeated requests for enlightenment. Austex • Talk 01:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I upgraded it to "C" class from "Start": it needs some additional references for certain. For instance: the figures on population were not simply "made up", so they need to be attributed to the source they are taken from. The section on endangered species is very interesting, but lacks inline citations. Ideally, all information should be backed up with references, but this is just an example. Hope to see it keep improving :> Doc talk 02:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll work on citations. When I inherited it, it had lots of "facts" that had no references (such as the pop data) so I need to go back and find those after the fact. Was there anything that struck you as overt advertising? Sun City gets a lot of play, but then it is a major part of Georgetown and a major political and demographic influence. Austex • Talk 14:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After reading it three times: I really don't think the article as a "whole" is written like an advertisement at all - lack of references seems to be the main thing that would keep it from moving up to "B" class, I would think. The Del Webb and Sun City thing is most certainly what he is referring to, and there are a few problems with that section. It says that it is "redirected" from the Sun City Georgetown (actually itself a redirect from Sun City Texas) article, but it's a cut-and-paste of that article with some additions, not a redirect. That article needs some serious citation work (note though that it seems to avoid the "flowery" words that would really make it sound like an ad... like this). I haven't seen any blatant copyvios, so that doesn't seem to be a problem. The phrase, "There are also clubs for almost any interest or hobby..." would seem a little "ad-like" to many. Another sentence in that article (not repeated here) is a little "iffy": "And, of course, the thriving city of Austin is nearby providing a variety of urban activities and the surrounding Hill Country region provides many opportunities for outdoor activities."
These next sentences could be an issue for some in this article: "Unfortunately Georgetown has not been able to lure major new employers in the manner that Round Rock has (Round Rock has Dell, for instance).", "...which all work together to create a sense of place that make people want to make Georgetown their home.", and the last word of that paragraph needs to be changed to "there" instead of "here". While it is certainly unfortunate about not getting the major employers, that could sound POV to some. The second sentence should just probably go: it's very "ad-like". Some "tweaks" are needed to those sections, but I don't think the article as a whole is written like an advertisement, IMHO. Of course: all the unreferenced information came from somewhere, so it's always best to source everything so it can't be challenged as original research. Cheers :> Doc talk 00:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good, constructive advice. My number one priority is to get rid of the advert issues (since, quite frankly, they are the easiest to do first) and then to move back to working on citations. In the next day or two I will throughly scrub the Sun City and other issues to remove any "iffy" language. Then when I have some time next week I will compile a list of needed citations (there are quite a few) and start working on those. Once the language is better, however, it would be nice to get additional peer review so we can reach consensus on the advert tag. To tell you the truth, at times I'm not entirely sure why I got into this article so deeply. It has a lot to correct. Austex • Talk 03:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm going to do is remove the advert tag from the top of the article, and simply add a {{Advert|section}} tag to the section in question. I see it as a compromise, as its not removing Chowbok's tag per se (hopefully he'll respond since he tagged it), and it's correcting what I believe to be a mistake in evaluating the entire article as an advert. Unless the entire article really does read like an advert, section tagging is a far better way to go. If Chowbok disagrees, we can go the WP:BRD way, and more discussion is bound to happen. Cheers :> Doc talk 04:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the section down considerbaly which makes it read better and eliminates the ADVERT issues, I hope. Took out one of the two photos, eliminated all discussion of amenities, tightened up paragraphs, etc. Austex • Talk 15:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prehistoric era[edit]

This contains the text "10,500 years ago (9500 BC)" Unless I'm missing something, 10,500 years ago is 8500 BC. Both "10,500 years ago (8500 BC)" and "11,500 years ago (9500 BC)" are consistent with the rest of the section so I don't know which to correct it to. Can someone knowledgeable please fix this? Thanks Kiore (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The correct date is 10,500 years ago. You are correct re the BC mistake and I'll fix it. Austex • Talk 23:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Austex Kiore (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Movies?[edit]

Some citation needs to be done. I think if Zombieland was filmed here more people would know about it. Garland, Texas is not Georgetown. On top of that there are numerous movies listed that I cannot find any citation of, other than a YouTube comment, as a reliable source. I'll be editing this further. An "email" from 2009 is not a sufficient source without a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.132.240 (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

News (county religious hiring test)[edit]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Georgetown, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Georgetown, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Politics[edit]

The primary television channel of the German association of public broadcasters just broadcast a feature on Geortown's environmentally friendly mayor, who was reelected with a 70% majority last May: http://www.daserste.de/information/politik-weltgeschehen/weltspiegel/videos/usa-dicke-luft-staedte-gegen-trump-video-100.html. Among other things, they said that the city embraces renewable energy, which is affirmed by the city's website and that the city joined an alliance of cities against Trump's reversal of the Paris Agreement, for which I could not find a reference. If I had more references, I would have added this in a new "Politics" subsection under Government and politics. — Sebastian 06:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, just when I wanted to close the Google page I had used, I found this: http://www.mystatesman.com/news/local-govt--politics/how-georgetown-gop-mayor-became-hero-climate-change-evangelists/oI2GjTFlznD2zJasq1iYUL/. — Sebastian 06:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trim the Sun City Texas section?[edit]

Should the Sun City Texas section be trimmed since there's a standalone article? (Sun City Texas) ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current logo is incorrect[edit]

The logo in the infobox is set to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:City_Logo.jpg

That may well be the logo for Andrews (another small city in Texas).

I found the logo for Georgetown, TX here: https://georgetown.org/images/city_2015/COGLogoWhite.png

found in the footer at:

https://visit.georgetown.org/

If someone could help the article by fixing this, I'd prefer accurate, or no, information, rather than the wildly inaccurate (Andrews is 350 miles from Georgetown).   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Georgetown,_Texas&oldid=1207499796"