Talk:Marshall, Texas/Archive 1

Archive 1

older entries

Wow, I had no idea Marshall, Texas was such a major and international city... 67.66.199.192 02:30, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There you have it. Thanks to Wikipedia, you've learned something new. Gotta run, there's an article on Sarcasm I have to check real quick. -- Kar98 21:18, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Please check caption

The community has developed in and around Whetstone Square, shown here in 1939. Guests lodged in the Capitol Hotel (left, shorter) and Hotel Marshall (right, taller), and in the 1960s the Harrison County Courthouse, center, hosted the first sit-ins in Texas.

Did I get the hotels right on the caption for this picture? I haven't been there and the caption didn't quite agree with the picture, so I tried to make it match. -- ke4roh 02:10, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

• Almost, they are both on the right. The taller one is Hotel Marshall, and the shorther one is the Capitol Hotel. They are both on the same block, the Capitol Hotel is in the foreground and Hotel Marhsall is in the background. Did you think that they wer the same building? If you look closely you can see that the proportions do not match. -JCarriker 03:15, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Why I Love Marshall

This native West Texan always breathed a sigh of relief upon arriving in Marshall during the six years he lived in Florida and occasionally made the long car trip back. Even though he still had hundreds of miles to go, it still felt like home. It also tasted like home. Thank you, El Chico. Also, they have great pottery. I have a couple of pieces in my kitchen. --H2O 03:27, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Some change needed, though.

Needs to be turned into less of an NAACP ad, though. Information about Whetstone, Ginocchio, the numerous cultural activity groups and what is freely available at the Courthouse Museum, for instance. Just ask for Lindsay. Kar98 05:45, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Kar you known how wikipedia works. Just jump in! Also Lindsay is already aware of the article; I can't say if she has chosen to read it or not. I had several natives read it before it was nominated to be a featured article and none of them, including the one with the Confederate flag on his hat, had any problems with it. If the article is deficient in anything it is railroad history as a tried to concentrate more on Marshall's significance to the Confederacy and Civil Rights Movenmetn which I felt were for relevant to an international encycopedia. -JCarriker 11:15, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I know, I know ;) Problem is, the information _is_ available at several pages, but I'm currently busy gathering all of those little stories, I then have to _re-compile_ them for the Courthouse Museum page, which I am also working on, and after that, re-do them /again/ for here. I'll get around doing it, eventually ;) Kar98 16:31, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Or possibly not.Kar98 18:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Political Center

I have removed political center from the introduction paragraph; with the finalization of redistricting, regardless of personal political preferences, Marshall's political clout is severly eroded enough to the point that I do not think rfereing to it as a major politcal center in East Texas is accurate at present. Hopefully for Marshall, this will change in the future. :) -JCarriker 11:15, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Well, Marshall _has_ been declared the official Cultural Capital of East Texas, such as it is :) Kar98 16:33, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

True, and from our cold dead hands shall they take our self-declared importance. :) -JCarriker July 7, 2005 08:43 (UTC)

My Hometown

A spendid article! I really appreciated the attention given to ALL of Marshall's residents. Mrs. Inez at the old courthouse made sure we learned the "stories of the majority"...

Issues with the article

My reasons for listing the article as a FARC are:

1. Absolutely no inline citation.

2. Next to no references.

3. Several large non-prose sections (like the trivia section). The notable citizens can probably be a split-off listed as a main article of some section.

I hope they can be resolved, but this article simply isn't FA quality IMO at this point. Staxringold 21:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

1, Next to no what nows?Kar98 02:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

For anyone interested Alabamaboy and I are working to meet some of Staxringolds conditions, within reason. Hence the new inline references. -JCarriker 04:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the heavy work, JCarriker and everyone. The article looks great now (though more inline citation is always better. :D). Staxringold 13:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

relgion section needed

This article smacks of secularism. Marshall has over 100 churches and not none of them are mentioned about today. Seeing who the author is on this page tells you why real quick to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.43.104 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 20 May 2007

This is a wiki--add in the missing info yourself. Just be sure to add in citations to support your facts. Best, --Alabamaboy 22:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please ignore the nitwit. And most importantly, don't encourage her.Kar98 03:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Without regard to the individual merits of 75.23.43.104 and his/her prior contributions, it may make sense to include a religion section. I have only contributed to the article by writing captions and I've never been to Marshall, but perhaps someone with closer knowledge could contribute a little? Or perhaps the Bible Belt culture is homogeneous enough that it would suffice to note, "Marshall is situated in the Bible Belt." (Then again, do we want to link from every locale in the southeast United States to say it's in the Bible Belt? -- ke4roh 18:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This article will undergo a FA review

I am going to submit this article for FA review within maybe the next week. This article is no where near FA quality - not enough citations, too many unsourced statements, short choppy wording, short incomplete non-comprehensive sections, sections made entirely of lists, and formatting errors. Editors of the article will be notified, and if no one has any substantial objections, and frankly, I don't see how they would, then I will submit this for a FAR. Okiefromokla•talk 20:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• I would like to take a stab at addressing your concerns before you take the trouble of submitting it to FAR. However, I am very busy at the moment with other editing tasks. Also, I would like to get other editors involved if possible. Would you consider waiting until the end of the this month and seeing what progress has been made? I think we can address your concerns in that time-frame. Best, Johntex\^talk 16:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in fact... I was intending to submit it for FAR before, but I just didn't because... I'm lazy or something. But yes, the article needs work and I would be willing to wait. Thanks. Okiefromokla•talk 22:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I used to think this was a really great city article...that was before I really understood what an FA is all about. I once used it as a model for what I wanted Grand Forks, North Dakota to become. Now that I look back at the Marshall article, I can see that it is very far away from being FA quality. Short sections, terribly lacking in references, and the inclusion of lists...not FA status. I think a FAR is in order. --MatthewUND^(talk) 22:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Respectfully, I think you are focusing on the wrong things:

1. Lists - Lists are not prohibited from FA. Please see WP:EMBED.
2. Section length - I am not sure what you mean by "short sections" since "short" is a subjective term. Sections in a FA are to be as long as needed to give comprehensive and broad coverage. This article is written in WP:SUMMARY so of course it is proper for sections to be relatively short where the detail is found in an entire separate article.
3. Reference - likewise, there is no minimum number of references needed. The standard is that things that are challenged or are likely to be challenged need references. No points in the article have been challenged to my knowledge.

You seem to be trying to focus on metrics such as length of sections and number of references. The reality is that the criteria is more concerned with quality of information and quality of writing. Could you please read through the article and point out if any problems of this type exist? Johntex\^talk 14:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think what MatthewUND is saying is that several sections, such as (most notably) education, are not comprehensive enough, and therefore too short. Not that they need to be longer just because. Also, lists are no longer generally accepted in Featured Articles... especially if the only thing in a section is a list, including city administration and city councilors, which should be prose about the city council or city administration and not a list of the members of the two. It would be perferable to convert it all into prose. Also, saying there are not enough references is absolutely correct. Media, Economy, education, City layout, physical geography, the city commision, and much of history are not sourced at all. I have other concerns as well, such as such as the fact that the city lacks a section on culture, or infrastructure or transportation (which can include the city layout section in addition to mass transportation, healthcare, etc) ... and possibly more that I am not thinking of at this very second. In all, the article is far behind many B-class city articles. Expanding on that point, I would be very shocked if it was promoted to GA class in its current state. Don't mean to sound harsh or anything, and I still will wait until the end of the month to put it up for FAR, but I have strong doubts that it will represent the best articles on Wikipedia by then. Okiefromokla•talk 20:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S: Though I would also like to add that I understand this is a small city and subsequently will have a much smaller article as compared to most FA cities. Still, I don't feel it is comprehensive enough (though perhaps too comprehensive in the history section). In a FAR, I am sure other editors will keep the city's size in mind. Okiefromokla•talk 20:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Okiefromokla, I want to thank you for listing out some specific things that you think need to be improved in the article. I/we will do our best to work on those. I don't want to get into second guessing what MatthewUND actually meant, but I stand by my comments: short sections are not a problem as such. Total number of references is not a goal as such.

Also, if anyone is objecting to FAs based upon whether they include lists, they need to bone up on the guideline. The guideline for FA is that the article comply with the MOS. The MOS includes WP:EMBED, which specifically says that lists within articles are OK, and even preferred under certain circumstances. The world is quite comfortable with using bulleted lists, there is no reason for any bias against them on Wikipedia. Prose is not preferable when a list does just fine. Johntex\^talk 20:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with you. But most of the time in a good article, lists should be used to supplement prose, and rarely encompass an entire section. Having lists as the main, only, or primary part of a section when it is not reasonably unavoidable is not indicative of the best Wikipedia has to offer, since upgrading to prose would greatly improve the article, even if it is "optional". Keep in mind, Featured Articles must represent the best of the best articles on Wikipedia, and not just meet technical guidelines. So even while it may technically not be forbidden for lists to be used as whole sections (that I know of, anyway), it certainly does not represent wikipedia's best work and prose is always preferable. (I would like to note that I am also alluding to tables being used as the only content in a section.)

On another note, when improving the article, I would highly recommend modeling after Grand Forks, North Dakota. For one, its easier to make a FA when you use another similar FA as a baseline standard. I also say this because Grand Forks is the only other American city FA similar in size and importance to Marshall and probably represents what the Marshall article should roughly look like when it is up to FA standard. It will also help with judging what content is needed or should be removed, if any. Okiefromokla•talk 23:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Okiefromokla from clarifying the points I was trying to make earlier. I should have put a little more effort into my comments...Okiefromokla did the work for me. With some effort, I think this article could be brought up to the quality of other FA city articles. However, as it currently stands, this article probably shouldn't even be at a GA class. The worst problem to me is the lack of refs. --MatthewUND^(talk) 00:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Lale 12" :
  • Lale, p. 12
  • Lale p. 12

DumZiBoT (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Missing nickname - Patent troll heaven

Nicknames do not have to be pleasant...

Marshall, Texas is increasingly being referred to in the media by nicknames such as patent troll heaven —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.165.2.95 (talk) 09:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

patent troll heaven

I have always heard Marshall referred to as the or A "Rocket Docket".

[1]

[2]

[3]

Sspct99 (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

66.190.100.159

User Seems to have deleted Notes, and also Notable citizens. I have put them back. Might be a user to watch in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whubbard (talk • contribs) 04:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

curious, how do you watch an "unsigned" user? Sspct99 (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Marshall, Texas/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Rated B Cite sources for facts. Article has 23 sections and subsections, but only 14 references. Use properly formatted references, see WP:CITET. Thumbnail photographs should have px sizing removed as they should all have the same width and adjust to the user's preferences. Reduce thumbnail text. The paragraph should discuss the photograph and reference the image. Bring external links in line with policy. WP:EL Apply WP:LEAD guideline. Include a GFDL skyline image in the infobox. Consider using {{Infobox City}}. Reduce use of subsections in favor of complete paragraphs under the main headings. Alan.ca 15:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Marshall, 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.marshall-chamber.com/pages/marshall.php
• Added archive https://archive.is/20160602200744/http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060208103743/http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/ to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928130938/http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/parole/parole-directory/paroledir-rgnldisparoff1.htm to http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/parole/parole-directory/paroledir-rgnldisparoff1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060822201915/http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlo/78R/billtext/HR00528F.HTM to http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlo/78R/billtext/HR00528F.HTM

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Marshall, 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120616174659/http://www.isjl.org/history/archive/tx/marshall.html to http://www.isjl.org/history/archive/tx/marshall.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070529192747/http://venus.soci.niu.edu/~archives/ABOLISH/july98/0024.html to http://venus.soci.niu.edu/~archives/ABOLISH/july98/0024.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120609130152/http://usps.whitepages.com/service/post_office/marshall-202-e-travis-st-marshall-tx-1371962 to http://usps.whitepages.com/service/post_office/marshall-202-e-travis-st-marshall-tx-1371962
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070607113405/http://www.chriselrod.com/ to http://chriselrod.com/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 11:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)