Talk:Texhoma
Add topicAppearance
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Mx. Granger in topic VFD discussion
VFD discussion
[edit]A page with no content that has never been edited by a human. Also, isn't an actual place - the Wikidata item it's connected to is for a disambiguation between two places. ARR8 (talk) 03:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - Valid search term. But it should probably be reduced to a disambig unless someone wants to work on it. The Oklahoma side shows 3 places of interest. If someone knows something about them, there could be listings for them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep and redirect. Ground Zero (talk)
- Keep, since it seems to pass the sleep test. However, I think the article's wording "pair of towns" should be changed to "a town" because it is de facto one town in two states. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, because we don't delete real places. I don't know whether it should be its own article or a redirect to somewhere nearby. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. It could be converted into a disambig page. The two communities have a total population of 1300, and the main attraction appears to be the border sign. Stratford (Texas) and Guymon are the nearest places that we do have articles for, and they are about the same distance away. AlasdairW (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - It's not a disambig page unless it links to individual articles for at least two different non-contiguous places with the same name (such as Portland (Oregon) as a colony of Portland (Maine). If there are a pair of articles linked for adjacent, contiguous places (like Nogales or Niagara Falls, split by the Mexico and Canada borders respectively) the general description page is an {{extraregion}}, not a {{disambig}}. If this is a Glenrio-sized speck on a map, there aren't and won't be two separate articles (or enough content to justify same) so nothing to disambiguate. K7L (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that both sides of the city should be treated as one destination. The only reason that the city is officially two separate cities is because the state line cuts through the middle of it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - would support a redirect, but what would you redirect it to? The only article above it in the hierarchy that isn't on either side of the county/state/region border is USA.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think the answer to that is, on which of the state line do most of the people live. Then you can redirect accordingly. But I think the best thing for now is to treat the Texhoma article as an ordinary city article, rather than as some unusual occurrence. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think that's essential. But if the part in one state is way more important than the part in the other state, we could redirect and cover the parts in both states in a single article that's breadcrumbed to that state. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think the answer to that is, on which of the state line do most of the people live. Then you can redirect accordingly. But I think the best thing for now is to treat the Texhoma article as an ordinary city article, rather than as some unusual occurrence. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- Move relevant information to its parent article and make a redirect - there is almost no useful content. --Zerabat (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Outcome: kept. There is clear consensus not to delete. There's some support for redirecting but no consensus for where to redirect it to, so for now I'm leaving it as an outline, and discussion can take place on the talk page to figure out whether a redirect makes sense. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)