Talk:San Antonio, Texas/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Embedded links

I'm being to become concerned with the number of external links that are embedded in the article. They have no value except to advertise the business websites, such as PF Changs, etc. Any thoughts? Clipper471 02:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The article does have way too many of them. I'm not a fan of External links inside the text in the first place, but this is just going overboard. The only thing that should be inside the text is references, which are listed at the bottom of the page. I'd say we start cleaning them up, section by section. --Brownings 03:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

City seal missing

What happened to the city seal? Looks like the image was deleted off of Wiki for some reason. Anyone have access to another copy or a cached one from Wiki? --Brownings 11:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Lat/long

Howdy !! I am looking at longitudes and latitudes of cities and big cities of USA lists a small number of cities - some have their stats with very very exact longitude and latitude whereas others have briefer longitude and latitude - just nit-picking, really but this city is one of the very very exact ones, I think. It is not great from the point of view of wikipedia consistency but it is great from the point of view of some aims, I reckon!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.112.31.198 (talk • contribs).

I'm almost sure one of our aviation buffs entered it - the coordinates are dead center of the San Antonio International Airport. :) Kuru talk 00:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Climate table for San Antonio

I decided to create a climate table, or weatherbox, for San Antonio. This is because it seemed a bit odd that out of the 5 largest cities in Texas, it was the only one without a climate table in its article. Especially strange, when it's the third largest metro area in the state! Hopefully, what I did was acceptable and any members here may feel free to make changes or add thoughts. NorthernFire 03:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice work Northern. I think the weatherbox looks great. Definitely a fantastic addition to the weather & climate section, and a keeper for sure! --Brownings 03:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Good work. I would say that if there is eventually a daughter article for Climate or Geography that the full table could be placed in that article and a condensed version could remain here. It looks fine for now and is informative. Thanks. Ufwuct 04:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"San Antone", again

This subject was touched on here. Being from Texas I can attest to the fact that Texans refer to San Antonio as "San Antone" as a term of endearment. From the former discussion a consensus was made that people from San Antonio and other Texans use the term (although there are some who don't agree). I suggest it be added to "Nicknames." I have never heard of "Alamo City" or "River City" before Wikipedia. --ProdigySportsman 20:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I've lived in Houston before moving to San Antonio in 1983. While in Houston, I know I've heard of references there to "San Antone". I do not believe, however, it is a nickname. I've never heard of a San Antonian refer to it as such. (I do, however, remember one interesting conversation where an SA resident thought referring it as San Antone was disrespectful.) Further, living in San Antonio since 1983, I've heard and seen numerous references to San Antonio as the River City and the Alamo City. Clipper471 00:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I've heard both Alamo City & River City. Alamo City I heard before moving here. I wasn't until I got here that I heard River City, which newscasts such as WOAI seem to love to use River City for some reason. I think "San Antone" should be just considered slang, kind of like when you hear many of the radio stations in promos and commercials refer to the city as SA Town (pronounced like Say Town). --Brownings 00:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
A review of Los Angeles, California and San Francisco, California shows that neither "L.A." or "San Fran" are included as nicknames. Clipper471 13:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

+I lived in San Antonio for about 15 years and heard it referred to as San Antone, River city and the Alamo City

Born in San Antonio, and having lived here for the 52 years of my life, I can honestly say that River City and Alamo City are quite common. It has always been my understanding that native San Antonians dislike, do not use and do not approve of the term 'San Antone'. It does have a slang sound to it.


Native San Antonian DO NOT Appove of the term "San Antone". Alamo City and River City are very common, just not to outsiders.

Native San Antonians refer to the city as San Antonio. Alamo City is also very common, but it's not a serious name--it's sort of like the Big Apple to New Yorkers. River City is very recent, since the River Walk was developed into a tourist attraction, and is really sort of a promotional name, not something San Antonians would ever say. Referring to the city as San Antone goes way back in history, old west, and was a sort of shorthand reference by outsiders who visited the city back when it was still sort of a frontier place. Nothing disrespectful about San Antone at all, but it is mainly from another era, although outsiders may not appreciate that. You can tell when outsiders say San Antone they think they are showing they are "in the know", when in fact they are showing that they are outsiders.


San Antonio has been home for 35 years. Most people consider "San Antone" to be an instant indicator that you are not a native. San Antone is legal if you're a songwriter because San Antonio doesn't sing or rhyme well. I've heard 'SA' (pronounced like essay with an accent on the second syllable) a lot lately, too. RBeast 19:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above statements. I currently live in the San Antonio Area, and the nicknames are: "The Alamo City", "River City", and "SA" (pronounced essay). Not, repeat not, "San Antone". No (or almost none) native San Antonio resident would refer to it as San Antone. This is never heard in the city itself. Although I have heard it by people in other areas of Texas, when referring to SA. 131.44.121.252 18:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is NEVER heard in the city? You have got to be kidding. I heard it all the time in High School and still hear it to this day. {{{1}}} 22:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Joske's image

Any particular reason we're keeping the Joske's postcard image in the Zone/Communities/Districts section? I removed it once, but it's been put back at some point. I just don't see the value added to the article by the image. Its one of two historic type images on the page which makes it even more strange. I can see having it somewhere if we had a section of historic/period photos and information, the SA article really doesn't have that. Besides, is Joske's really that important to the overall history of San Antonio? Sure, everyone knows the Alamo is here, but how many people even remember Joske's? I say we remove the image and use the space for something else, perhaps a sample image from each of the Zone/Communities/Districts. --Brownings 13:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I put that image there some time ago. I think it does well to keep it in this article. The current building at Commerce and Alamo is much different than what is shown in the postcard, adding a historical perspective to the intersection as it was in the early 20th century. Many people remember Joske's (pre-1987). Those that don't get a good impression of the once "biggest store in the biggest state". Clipper471 15:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Joske's was to San Antonio as Macy's to New York. Historically it occupied a fairly significant place in the local psyche.

Yes, and Joske's holds a lot of memories for San Antonio.

American Southwest issue

The Random House Unabridged Dictionary and Merriam-Webster define Texas as being geographically placed in the direct south United States; furthermore, the southwest is generally characterized by desert land, low rainfall, a somewhat arid climate, and only moderate vegetation. San Antonio doesn't fit any of these descriptions. There is a large Mexican population, but there is also a significant Puerto Rican, Cubano, Dominican, Venezuelan, el Salvadorian, and even Jamaican population. That's not something you'll find in a southwestern city. Houston also has a large Mexican population, but is farthest from being southwestern. Bottom line it's a Gulf Coastal Plains city. Not a southwestern city. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.201.118.165 (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

There are several overlapping definitions. See Southwestern United States, Southern United States, South Central United States, Southeastern United States and Gulf Coast of the United States. -- drumguy8800 C T 04:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't exactly consider Wikipedia a reliable source, only because of the fact that just about anything can be edited, added, and disputed without any solid information. Those articles don't even count because they contradict themselves. They have a list of states, but those states aren't even highlighted in the same article. Not to say anything about the user, but San Antonio as a southwestern city is a common misconception made by those not properly educated on the matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.201.118.165 (talk) 04:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC).


See [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] All of the references I have provided link San Antonio as part of the American Southwest. Please spend time and do research to back up your claim as well. Thanks! —RJN 05:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I see, and everyone will always have their opinions on that because humans are stubborn that way. But the fact of the matter is that San Antonio does not fit the definition of a place in the southwest. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about it. You gave a lot of sources, but that only proves my point that it's a "common misconception" as I said above. Why can't the article just state the fact that the issue of San Antonio as a southwestern city is disputed?
  1. Because you don't sign your posts
  2. Because it seems to be that you are the only one who disputes it. BQZip01 22:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone was asking you, and I could care less if you think I'm the only one who disputes it. Maybe on Wikipedia, yeah. And don't come on here making unnecessary, smart-ass remarks because it wasn't called for.--68.201.118.165 23:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? This is an open public forum and users (preferably members) can discuss any issues that are at hand. This discussion is not limited to your chosen few, nor is it limited to only the people that you intend to address.
A lack of a signature at the end of your post indicates that you didn't follow one of the established guidelines, "...and remember to sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~)." It takes all of about a minute to become a member (far less time than it took for you to type this inflamatory response). In addition, you are the sole voice contesting the matter. This is not a consensus on the subject and, therefore, we shouldn't implement your suggestion. BQZip01 23:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, fine, but that still doesn't justify you making wise cracks or using corny phrases such as "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot." No one said we had reached consensus because it's still being discussed. If you want to be a part of the discussion, that's cool, but don't start acting like a jerk because, once again, it wasn't called for. And it was an accident that I hadn't signed my post but when I went back to fix it, I saw the code that the HBot automatically signed it.--68.201.118.165 23:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
You can still go back and fix it. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot is the phonetic alphabet equivalent (and an acceptable military radio transmission) of "What the FUCK?" and is FAR more polite than what I was actually thinking. Next time I will be FAR more explicit for you.
The whole I don't think anyone was asking you and I could care less if you think I'm the only one who disputes it are the actual problems here.
  1. Wikipedia's ideals are that we come to a consensus within the community.
  2. If you are the lone voice of disent, try to prove your point more than typing. Show us source material
  3. Grow a backbone and stand up and fight about the subject, not whether your feelings are hurt. If you think I (and everyone else) is wrong, prove it! THAT is what Wikipedia is all about. Someone showed 11 sources. Show us 12 that favor your side! If you prove them wrong (especially with articles from the city's website), I'll back you up in a heartbeat!
Don't get your feelings hurt over petty stuff! Put on your big girl panties and BE BOLD! — BQZip01 — talk 02:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. The whole big girl panties thing was intended to get a rise out of you. Just ignore it and respond logically! — BQZip01 — talk 02:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Well I apologize for implying that you shouldn't be a part of the debate, but at that time I felt that you shouldn't if you were going to be disrespectful.
Now as far as this topic, why should the decision about the city's geography be based solely on whoever finds the most sources saying that San Antonio is in the Southwest. That's ridiculous. Especially when I found two standard definitions of the city that place it in the direct south. Everyone will always have their uneducated opinion, but in educating the masses, this article should be based on solid fact. I don't think you get much more official than Merriam-Webster. You can't honestly say this doesn't make sense.--Mphifer254 03:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The Encyclopaedia Britannica and the Oxford English Dictionary also describe San Antonio as a centrally Southern city.--Mphifer254 03:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
HEY! You got a name!
MUCH BETTER RESPONSE!!! M-W has been known to make mistakes (just like other sites), but local government sites claim to be part of the Southwest. The state of Texas is considered part of the South and was part of the Confederacy. Fort Worth (north and east of San Antonio) is known as "Where the West begins." There are conflicting terms and there is no way we will come to an exact conclusion (much like the definition of terrorism).
It isn't a clear-cut issue, just like saying San Antonio is in the Hill Country...no it isn't! it's part of the coastal plain!...no, stupid! WTF? You are both wrong! it's right at the edge of the West Texas deserts. In reality it is all three depending on what section of San Antonio we are talking about.
As long as you can cite it with verifiable sources, I say that we put that it is considered as both a part of the South and the Southwest and put references on both. WHO'S WITH ME!? — BQZip01 — talk 03:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Come on guys! It's the Encyclopaedia Britannica! The official reliable source, lol. But if it must be that way, then it needs to be noted in the article that the geographic position of San Antonio is debated (even though official sources state it as southern, it sits on an Atlantic ocean river, is a Gulf Coast plain city, i.e. doesn't fit the description of the southwest, but WHATEVER).
You mentioned the local governments that identify with the southwest. They evidently watch too much television, but that goes back to what I said about people having their own opinion. Historically, it is in the West. All but the thirteen colonies and Florida are considered the West. But geographically, it isn't.--Mphifer254 04:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Folks,

I'll jump in here if I may. I think that when the dictionaries and EB calls SA "south" or "southern", they are speaking geographically, which is correct: SA is geographically directly south.

But when sites like this refer to SA in the "southwest", I think they are making that distinction culturally. And that is correct too: SA is culturally part of the Southwest, unlike Houston and DFW.

Perhaps we can make that distinction too.--Zereshk 05:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No it is not! There is no desert in San Antonio. San Antonio is entirely too green and it sits in a humid subtropical climate rather than an arid one. There are pine trees all over the city. You do not see pine trees in the Southwest. You people are confusing "West" with "Mexican." San Antonio has a strong Mexican culture that is influenced by Atlantic coast Mexico. Now, the Black culture in San Antonio is completely southern and most of the white culture too. The dialect is southern.


Now if you want to talk about Southwest cities, you need to talk about El Paso, Albuquerque, and Phoenix. Those cities will fall in line with what it means to be a Southwestern city.--Mphifer254 16:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If I can jump into this jump in: Any green in San Antonio relies on heavy duty watering from the aquifer. It is NOT a subtropical climate. The north side of San Antonio is the southern edge of the "Hill Country", which is not green. The southside of San Antonio is the northern edge of the brush country, and the brush country is brown, not green. On the culture side, you will have to do some really hard looking to find any evidence of Southern culture. San Antonio was founded before the South existed. It's culture is distinctly frontier and Mexican. With all respect, whatever city the person in the previous paragraphs was describing, it was not San Antonio. Sounds more like Houston, which has lots of pine trees, being in East Texas. I am sure there may be a pine tree or two in San Antonio, but I have never seen one. I think the writer is describing Houston in every respect. San Antonio is distinctly Southwest and Mexican, nothing Southern AT ALL. The dialect is South Texas/West Texas twangy; assuredly not Southern. The paragraph below this one was also written about the paragraphs above; the view here is a little more definitive than in the following paragraph.

Respectfully, your definition of Southwest is not the only one and your statements are broad generalizations that are not true.
  1. San Antonio is entirely too green - Obviously you have never been there in August when everything turns an ugly shade of brown. Even deserts turn green with enough water.
  2. There are pine trees all over the city. You do not see pine trees in the Southwest. - I beg to differ. The Great Basin Bristlecone Pine (Pinus longaeva) is one of the bristlecone pines, a group of three species of pine found in the higher mountains of the southwest United States.
  3. You people are confusing "West" with "Mexican"...San Antonio has a strong Mexican culture that is influenced by Atlantic coast Mexico. - Tone it down a whole heck of a lot. You people can be considered extremely offensive. You have no idea what we are thinking and it certainly isn't that we are thinking "Mexican." However, with such a sizable Mexican-American population, the Southwest is influenced heavily by Mexican culture too. That only seems to support the Southwest claim, not the other way around.
  4. Now, the Black culture in San Antonio is completely southern and most of the white culture too. The dialect is southern. Dialects from San Antonio are Southern and Southwestern
I think it would be much more reasonable to just put that SA is a crossroads between the South and the Southwest since it seems to have characteristics from both cultural regions. — BQZip01 — talk 17:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)



I apologize and I'll bring it down a thousand.
Every area of the country that doesn't have a backdrop of evergreen trees turns a sort of naked brown in the autumn...the pine trees that I am speaking of are the loblolly pine. The kind that are almost completely native to the eastern U.S....I've never heard of a Southwestern dialect and wouldn't be able to identify it even if I heard it...Now, as far as Mexican culture, Houston has more Mexicans than San Antonio but that doesn't make it Southwestern. Both cities just so happen to be close to Mexico, but neither are Southwestern. Southwestern cities are also characterized by a lot of western Native American reservations...not in San Antonio. San Antonio is Southern/Mexican/Ranch-style. End of story.--Mphifer254 20:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
MPhier, End of story? You have to be kidding! Well he said it is over, so I must be in the wrong. I couldn't possibly have anything to contribute to the discussion. You don't decide the discussion is over. This is a consensus-building site and your opinion is the only dissent. Mine is with the majority. If anything, your rantings are likely to be the ones that are ignored.
FYI, The loblolly pine forests are north and east of San Antonio. I'll be honest, I've never seen a loblolly pine in San Antonio. Oak trees are by far the FAR more pentiful tree in the San Antonio Metroplex.
If you read the link, you would have noticed that wikipedia currently defines areas of the Southwest as having a sizable Mexican-American population and is influenced by the Mexican culture. It mentions nothing about reservations being the deciding factor, but since you mentioned it, what about Oklahoma? Is it Southwestern? How about North Dakota?
Houston has more Mexicans than San Antonio Got a source for that? I'll concede numerically that it might have more Hispanics, but I'll bet San Antonio has more precentage-wise.
San Antonio is Southern/Mexican/Ranch-style...and the Alamo so clearly shows it...have you seen the San Antonio Library? Have you seen the houses in the metroplex (especially those north of I-35 bordered by Loop-410 and I-10 on the West side)?
In short, I have provided links. You have provided unsourced claims. — BQZip01 — talk 02:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I've nothing to contribute to s/sw debate, but I can confirm the mega-flora. The "natural" forests here are about 60% live oak and other oak mixes, and 40% big ass weeds - slowly trending to weed domination. The variety increases around water sources, but I can't seem to place any naturally occurring pines in the area. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure they really start up until you get closer to Houston than to SA. Kuru talk 03:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Well I can tell you right now that you're wrong because they're all over the place. You can even read the loblolly pine article and see what it says about central Texas (SA is south central Texas).
The Pueblo, Navajo, desert, semi-arid or arid climate, high concentration of adobe, dry vegetation, authentic Southwest cuisine (Tex-Mex is not). These are common denominators of a southwestern area. San Antonio has none of these.
Please don't act as if I'm going mad trying to prove a point. No one is ranting and raving. When I said "end of story" I meant that there really is nothing else that can be said because I felt I proved my point. I wasn't implying that you couldn't say anything else. You can say whatever you want as far as I'm concerned, but stop being so defensive. But every valid point I bring up seems to go in one ear and out the other. You have yet to give me one correct, commonly sensible, generally accepted fact as to why SA is SW. I have given you plenty of reasons why it identifies with the South. But I grow tired, and right now I feel that we should probably just put in the article that San Antonio's location is disputed, but I would not recommend this article to anyone. I still don't see how you could get any more official than the Encyclopaedia Britannica. That's a source older than probably everybody on this website.--Mphifer254 03:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

San Antonio has a 61% Hispanic (of any race) population and Houston has about a 40% Hispanic (of any race) population. Not really the same, but close enough, and I know for a fact that there are more Mexicans in Houston metro than there are in San Antonio.--Mphifer254 04:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  1. Encyclopaedia Britannica is updated every year and is one source among many. It is a good reference, but is not God on every subject. They do make mistakes.
  2. The Pueblo, Navajo, desert, semi-arid or arid climate, high concentration of adobe, dry vegetation, authentic Southwest cuisine (Tex-Mex is not). These are common denominators of a southwestern area. San Antonio has none of these. Where did you pull this from? Since when is Tex-Mex not authentic Southwest cuisine? Wikipedia begs to differ.
  3. Hispanics are not Mexicans!!! Take the time to find out the difference (hint: one is a nationality of a crime-ridden, drug-lord ruled country). I take Great offense at you lack of a distinction!
  4. As for the loblolly pine, read the article yourself "Loblolly Pine is the pine of the "Lost Pines" area around Bastrop, Texas and in McKinney Roughs along the Texas Colorado River. These are isolated populations on areas of acidic sandy soil, surrounded by alkaline clays that are poor for pine growth." In short, the soils in San Antonio cannot support the trees you purport to be an expert on. Additionally, Central and South-Central Texas are two different places. I also used to travel through Bastrop to Texas A&M 30-40 times per year and it is a pretty stark contrast to go from 10-20 foot live oak trees to 40+ foot loblolly pines simply passing from one side of the city to the other. San Antonio is DOMINATED by live oaks and cedars.
  5. I grow tired of disproving all of your claims:
  1. "There are pine trees all over [San Antonio]." No there aren't and your source article states they cannot survive outside of limited (and specifically noted) areas in Central Texas.
  2. "You do not see pine trees in the Southwest." Yes you do. In fact, some of them are the oldest living species of any living entity.
  3. "There is no desert in San Antonio." This is a red herring since being in a desert is not a qualification of being in the Southwest.
  4. "San Antonio has a 61% Hispanic (of any race) population and Houston has about a 40% Hispanic (of any race) population. Not really the same, but close enough." Houston is around 33%. Percentage-wise, they are not even close and that is what is at play here. If you have a city of 1,000,000 and 1,000 Hispanics, no one would consider them a Hispanic city, but it a city of 1,500 has 1,000 Hispanics, then it is. Hmmm. By the actual numbers (ones with included references: [[12]]×1,256,509=766,470, but [[13]]×2,076,189=685,142. 766,470>685,142, but you "know" you're correct.
  5. "I felt I proved my point...[E]very valid point I bring up seems to go in one ear and out the other." A lot of points you bring up are wrong. Have you ever considered that your opinions are based on emotions and not facts? Have you ever considered that your opinions are wrong?
In short, if you keep making up the qualifications of a Southwest city, eventually you'll get a definition that fits only the cities you want, but many of your claims are false.
I believe that San Antonio should be referred to as a crossroads between the South and the Southwest. Would you agree? — BQZip01 — talk 05:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
LOL, YOU STILL HAVE NOT GIVEN ME ANY WAY THAT THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO IDENTIFIES WITH THE SOUTHWEST. Except for the Mexican thing (and I know what Hispanic is). As far as those "common denominators" of the Southwest go, look at the articles for each one and you'll see what I mean. And the Tex-Mex issue, go to the Southwest article and read the very last sentence. The Houston Hispanic population is not 33%. Reference to the U.S. Census Bureau website, Houston Hispanic pop is 42.3% putting the number of Hispanics (presumably predominant Mexican) at 820,510 (so there are indeed more in Houston). And that's just the city limits, if you set aside enough time you could factor in Houston's metro that adds 3.5 million people, so I'm almost positive that would make Houston's Mexican-American population double the size of San Antonio's.
Now, how exactly were any of my claims "false"? What lies have I told? I really want to know what bubbling emotions lead me to believe that San Antonio is southern. Keep in mind that I am a resident of Houston, so if you were implying that I was just a SA resident trying to qualify as southern...not quite. That said, I hope that statement puts me at a level playing field and allows me to be taken seriously.--Mphifer254 07:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Mphier's False Claims (I never said you lied, and these are just two...I don't feel that I need to do any more):
  1. "There are pine trees all over [San Antonio]."; "Well I can tell you right now that you're wrong because [[[pine trees]] are] all over the place."
  2. "You do not see pine trees in the Southwest."
Why Mphier's Claims are false:
  1. The loblolly pine, which you claim to be "all over San Antonio" do not exist there. "Loblolly Pine is the pine of the "Lost Pines" area around Bastrop, Texas and in McKinney Roughs along the Texas Colorado River. These are isolated populations on areas of acidic sandy soil, surrounded by alkaline clays that are poor for pine growth." In short, the soils in San Antonio cannot support the trees you purport to be an expert on. Additionally, Central and South-Central Texas are two different places. I also used to travel through Bastrop to Texas A&M 30-40 times per year and it is a pretty stark contrast to go from 10-20 foot live oak trees to 40+ foot loblolly pines simply passing from one side of the city to the other. San Antonio is DOMINATED by live oaks and cedars.
  2. The Bristlecone Pine is the oldest known tree around and is found all over the Southwest.
Ouside of your dictionary and enclyclopedia references, the rest of your claims seem to be just your opinion.
  1. "[San Antonio is not] Pueblo, Navajo, desert, semi-arid or arid climate, high concentration of adobe, dry vegetation, authentic Southwest cuisine, [of which Tex-Mex is not]."
  2. "San Antonio is entirely too green..."
  3. "Historically, it is in the West. All but the thirteen colonies and Florida are considered the West. But geographically, it isn't."
  4. "Everyone will always have their uneducated opinion, but in educating the masses, this article should be based on solid fact."
As for the whole census thing, fine. I already conceded that Houston has more by current estimates, but San Antonio still has more percentage-wise. As for the rest, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree, but I think the following compromise is accurate:
San Antonio is as a crossroads between the cultures of the South and the Southwest.
— BQZip01 — talk 15:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think User:BQZip01 went into the trouble of answering all Mphifer's arguments. All I will say is that it feels a heck of alot more Southwestern-ish here in SA than it does back in Tennessee and Arkansas, where I grew up. It's not that Green here as Mphifer says, especially compared to the classical south states KY, MS, AR, TN, GA, etc. And each time I walk in the Hill Country north of 1604 along I-10, I sure as heck feel the Southwestern influence. Not to mention that chances of hearing Spanish here in the streets are tenfold than hearing it in, say, Houston. I recommend the book "Our Southwest" By Erna Fergusson, where the book talks about San Antonio and "what is the southwest?". Maybe Mphifer should come down to SA and watch our annual Fiesta San Antonio celebrations, which start in a few days, to see just how strong the Southwestern influence here is. That said, we also have a famous San Antonio Stock Show & Rodeo here, and I can also see strong influences from "The South". So, I think it would be best accurate just to say "San Antonio is at a crossroads between the cultures of the South and the Southwest", as User:BQZip01 has mentioned, even though personally I feel that the Southwestern component is a bit more stronger. But then again, that's just my opinion.--Zereshk 18:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

(late response) Well I can tell you right now that you're wrong because they're all over the place. You can certainly tell me your opinion; but it does not improve my assessment of your knowledge in the region. I'm willing to assume good faith that you believe it; so I'll have to ask for clarification. Are you saying that they are "all over the place" in private landscaping; on in actual "wild" settings? Are you really saying they're the 100' East Texas like Loblolly Pines, or some smaller version of the same that we're all missing? Maybe you're confusing them with some of the larger cedars? I'm really at a loss here; it's simply not possible to miss massive forests of giant pine trees. Maybe you could tell me a couple of specific locations were you've seen them to help me out? I am genuinely curious.
After reading Zereshk's breakdown, I'm inclined to agree with BQZip01's crossroads comment. San Antonio does not readily lend itself to a specific cultural labeling; as nebulously subjective as those are to begin with. Kuru talk 21:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
How I'm feeling right now, I could care less what you guys do with the article. Seriously, lol. Have your way with it. But it was really cool debating it with everybody. Probably the best discussion I've had on this site :D.--Mphifer254 23:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me add my 2 cents.

1) There are no pine trees in San Antonio (I live in the area). There are however, a lot of cedar trees, which kind of look like a smaller version of pine trees and are evergreen trees. The closest loblolly pine trees (100' tall pine trees) are located about an hour to the north east in Bastrop. There are other pine stands as you get closer to Houston along I-10, as well, but none near San Antonio (within an hour of the city). I am sure some people have planted pines, but they did not grow naturally. The main trees that grow naturally (without being transplanted) in SA are the Live Oak and Cedar. Cypress is common along the local rivers too.

2) San Antonio is a subtropical climate in a transition climate to semi arid. Subtropical means not tropical, but transitioning to tropical. All of the Southeastern US and most of Texas fit into this category. East of San Antonio is Hot/Humid moist tropical air from the gulf. West of San Antonio is Hot/Dry air from the Southwest and Mexico. SA is nearly the dividing point between the 2. Look up the definition of Subtropical and San Antonio is located in most maps in the subtropical portion. Whereas, areas around Del Rio westward are located in the Semi-Arid climate.

3) San Antonio is "fairly" green, but is highly susceptible to droughts and dry weather, unlike the immediate gulf coast (for example Houston), which are greener and have bigger trees (pines, etc.) SA is in a transition from the very green southeast to the desert southwest, and can be green or brown, depending on whether it is a drought year. Right now it is very green, due to much rainfall this year.

4) San Antonio is in a transition zone between the Southern US and Southwest. I would call it South Central US, but Southwest would not necesarily be wrong. Neither would Southern, or southcentral. It is right in the middle of the transition between the two. 131.44.121.252 18:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


Okay, I admit I'm an outsider; but this whole SA being in the South or Southwest has really got my attention. I just want to throw out a few observations...

1) According to the 2000 Census the San Antonio metro area is 51.7% Latino. The city is about 59% Latino. Latinos form the majority of the population under both measures. 2) The roots of San Antonio are Spanish. 3) Until recently a good portion of non-Latinos living in the American Southwest, were more likely to either be Southerners or people whose forefathers lived in the South. 4) While definitely not a model of tolerance at the time, San Antonio does not quite have the Jim Crow history that other Southern cities had [14].

In my opinion, I believe San Antonio has more in common with the American Southwest than the South. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.3.8.253 (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Scrolling image

BQZip01,

Do you think it would be better to have this image instead of the current one for the STMC? It has the advantage that it is 4000 pixles wide, so it would look better in scrolling format. But then, we can put "1500px" inside the tag, like they did over here (to reduce the Hong Kong pic's width from 3495 to 2500px), so the image wont appear too high (or tall) in the article, like it currently does.--Zereshk 19:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY!!! Fabulous find! — BQZip01 — talk 04:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Added it. Very nice find!!! — BQZip01 — talk 04:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

To-Do list

I added a To-Do list with several tasks I thought the article needs. Feel free to discuss, or even add any tasks. --I Are Scientists 02:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Correction - Camp Stanley

The reference to Camp Stanley links to a description of Camp Stanley, South Korea, not the one in San Antonio.70.251.194.91 01:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - changed it to a redlink to an empty article for now. Kuru talk 01:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image: Skyline

The current image of San Antonio's skyline looks old and outdated. It is very dull. It doesn't even include San Antonio's signature Tower of the Americas. I hope we can find a replacement. -- Longhornsguy07 13:25 01 June 2007

Given the angle, I would not be surprised if it was taken from the tower. :) - TexasAndroid 18:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
It looks like it was. I personally have no problem with the image myself. Dknights411 01:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's from the tower. You can tell by the way it's looking down on Alamo St. and those cube looking hotel rooms. It's not that this is a bad pic, just not the best of San Antonio's sky line. --Brownings 02:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, a new image has been changed out on the main page. It's better than the old, but there is a problem. The image has already been tagged for Speedy Deletion. --Brownings 18:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
If/when it's deleted, it's a simple revert to get back to the previous image. Nice try, but we cannot bend the project's license rules just because we like the new pic better. - TexasAndroid 19:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I actually prefered the old pic myself. Dknights411 00:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As you may have seen, I've uploaded a GFDL image for the skyline. I took the photo today, so that it's a current as can possibly be. It's not 100% perfect, but better than the other two posted. If anyone can get a better shot from another viewpoint, please feel free. --Brownings 01:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much the outcome *I* was hoping for. Good job, and thank you for getting it done. - TexasAndroid 03:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Much better! More buildings, and this one shows the tower! Longhornsguy07 20:24, 11 June 2007

Spurs

One is inclined to think the Spurs deserve a mention in the lead by virtue of what they have accomplished in recent seasons -- as such I have included one line mentioning the Spurs. I also think that this article uses too much bolding, which contravenes Wikipedia's manual of style guidelines I believe. Manderiko 20:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Propose split/break-out

The article is a bit on the large size. I see at least one section that could easily be split out to it's own article, reducing a good chunk of the article size. Namely the culture section. This section could be easily move wholesale to a new article to cut down on size here. The Neighborhoods section is another good candidate for break-out, IMHO. So I am declaring my intention to break-out at least these two sections within the next couple of days, baring any major objections. The point of this post is to give a chance for anyone objecting before I dive into this. - TexasAndroid 13:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Two days, no comments, let alone objections. I'm moving forward with splitting out the culture and possibly the Neighborhood sections into separate articles. - TexasAndroid 17:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Basic break-out is done. The main article is still ~44K, a little large, but much better than the ~70K it was at before the split. I'm thinking about what else could be split out, but nothing else is quite as obvious. Oh well, no rush. - TexasAndroid 18:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the article is still large and has imformation that could be split out. Good work! Longhornsguy07 20:26, 11 June 2007

Sweep baby! Sweep!--Zereshk 05:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


Importance Upgrade?

Isn't it surprising that San Antonio is only rated High Importance in Wikiproject Texas? Seeing as it is the 7th most populous city in the US (3rd most in Texas)and a big center of Texas history it should be Top importance. Under the criteria for Top importance in Wikiproject Texas is: Cities over 100,000 and major metropolitan areas. San Antonio definitely meets that criteria. I would have changed it immediately but I wanted an opinion first, although seeing as how cities like Abilene and Carrollton are Top Importance it would be stupid not to make it Top. Dabomb87 00:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your comments. Nothing more to add, really. - TexasAndroid 15:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I changed it. Dabomb87 23:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the change. Thanks for looking into this. --Brownings 01:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I like to see a certain amount of consistency. Dabomb87 19:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

How does one edit the weather/climate table?

The date for the Feb. all-time high is wrong -- it should be 1996, not 1986. But when editing the page all I see is {{San Antonio weatherbox}} for the table. How does one access the table to edit it? I couldn't find anything in the Wiki help that discussed this. 129.162.1.31 23:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I made the changes. Actually finding those Wikipedia infoboxes is a total pain the butt. I've got the syntax written down somewhere, but never seem to be home when I actually need the information. As a work around, just Google whatever infobox you're looking for, and it's usually the first or second link. In the case of this box, I just Googled "San Antonio weatherbox wikipedia" and it took me right to it. Cheers, and thanks for dropping by to contribute. --Brownings 00:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)