Talk:Princeton, Texas

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Untitled

Someone added a picture of the Van Winkle Cemetery which is Climax Community. The picture actually said it was taken in Princeton but it is actually several miles outside of Princeton.

princeton tx has a yearly onion festibal to commimarate its rich history in farming onions at one point in time it was collin countys leading producer of onions they were transported by train back were the old onion storage room was there is now an empty barn wich has been used by the boy scouts --209.152.2.31 16:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edited for civility)... half of this stuff isnt true

I have removed half of it. Perhaps the remaining comment should go too. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted some comments about the benefits of a city charter. They were not specific to a Charter in Princeton. They were just possible benefits of any charter. If the charters are going to be discussed it should certainly be the real charters which were voted down three times. Does anyone think it is worth discussing the three proposed charters that were voted down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.68.205.209 (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, looking over this noise

Let's see if any of it is appropriate. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this under unimportant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.152.2.3 (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit stuff

I have just removed paragraphs of stuff about the lawsuit and a list of "sources" apparently related to it. First, it was way too detailed for such a short article; second it was given undue weight and third, none of the "sources" were secondary. The court documents are all well and good, but we need secondary sources which discuss the dispute and its notability.--ukexpat (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no dispute why is the lawsuit stuff in the article? I just don't get it.--ukexpat (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ukexpat. Agree, the old and finalized lawsuit information is irrelevant to the wikipedia article. The supporting document is hosted at yolasite.com domain that appears to support only this wikipedia article. City of Branch who has seems to edit only webpage of Princeton, Texas. I suggest we seek help with administrators to remove the lawsuit related information. Also, suggest trimming the details in Government & Finance sections - that seems to be written with non-neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinecar (talk • contribs)

back and forth

@Pinecar, @BranchHistory, could you two please come in here and discuss rather than reverting one another? —valereee (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuite stuff, again

BranchHistory Restating the concerns raised by other authors before

"First, it was way too detailed for such a short article;"
"second it was given undue weight and "
"third, none of the "sources" were secondary. The court documents are all well and good, but we need secondary sources which discuss the dispute and its notability."
"If there is no dispute why is the lawsuit stuff in the article? I just don't get it."
"I deleted some comments about the benefits of a city charter. They were not specific to a Charter in Princeton. They were just possible benefits of any charter. If the charters are going to be discussed it should certainly be the real charters which were voted down three times. Does anyone think it is worth discussing the three proposed charters that were voted down?"

Additional discussions available at User_talk:BranchHistory#July_2021 for reference.

Thanks valereee for suggesting to have the discussion in this page - that's more appropriate. (I should have done that sooner).

Pinecar (talk) 04:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First - seems like an arbitrary judgement call related to what hard and fast rule?
second - same as "First."
third - primary, secondary, tertiary, what rule governs this decision?
No dispute, case over in 2011, but its significance remains for people in Texas. This case affected tens of thousands of people in Collin County in long-reaching ways that eventually changed property laws in the entire state of Texas in 2017 and 2019. The new property laws of Texas actually match all but a few states in the U.S.A. These recent changes in the laws are sited and referenced under Government.
Many people are unaware how a city charter can directly create taxes on virtually anything. This usually unknown information is for anyone interested in Government.BranchHistory (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For decades, cities in Texas have been able to take peoples' land without their consent. In 2019, for the first time in Texas, no landowner can lose his land to a city without his/her consent. This is huge. How are facts a dispute? How is contributing to people's knowledge a problem? By way of analogy, when I look up info on the different vaccines and find that some people have bad reactions, but most don't, how is that not a dispute? Both kinds of info are helpful. Please advise. Thank you.BranchHistory (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BranchHistory for your response. I disagree with your answers to each of the 5 items listed above. I do not know the relevant wikipedia rules to point out - as the reason. Making my opinion known, so that other authors/experts can review.

Also, some of your affiliation/actions that you used to write this article, there might be a wikipedia requirement to disclose in your user page. Examples:

you hosting 2 yola sites that you referenced in the article, instead of other sources - to prove the notability of the information to be included in the article

your neighbors and you were concerned about City of Princeton's actions long before the legal case was brought up by the County of Collin (to me, it indicates, you were motivated and benefited by the court's verdict, that you are celebrating using this wikipedia article)

you send emails to neighbors and relatives (unsure if this is grassroot or neighborhood activism, using your privilege as wikipedia author. As this is broad statement, this might be irrelevant. I am sorry if this is taken out of context by me. I am still adding here for other authors/experts to review.)

During my initial reverts of your changes, I assumed you were impersonating the former City of Branch, with your previous user name 'City of Branch'. Glad, you worked with the wikipedia administrators to change your user name.

Speaking only as an administrator with no opinion on content: there is a policy of WP:UNDUE weight, and it quite often is interpreted to refer to the length of a section vs. the overall length of the article. Spending too much time on one issue can be undue weight for that issue and needs to be adjust in proportion to the rest of the important information about a subject.

Secondary sources are strongly preferred over primary, per WP:RSPRIMARY.

BranchHistory, if you do have a potential WP:conflict of interest, you should disclose it. We can work with COI editors, but it's always best to disclose. —valereee (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Improve Article

This wikipedia article got B grade for US and Texas projects. Can we get some help improving it?

I strongly believe, summarizing/minimizing some of the following topics can help making this article better

Branch, Texas annexation - 99% of this information should be part of Branch, Texas or Collin County or Texas - not Princeton
Home Rule topic - does not belong to this article
2012 (old) Fitch rating - not much value to 99% of the readers of this article

Adding/updating other topics like neighborhoods, parks/recreation, trails, flora/fauna, climate, demographics, pictures (old/current), notable people, sports, law/government (city, county, state, federal), transportation, places of interest, economy etc., can help improving the article as well. One way I think - what information will a tourist be interested while visiting this place for 2 hours/days/weeks/months/years.

Some of my edits in these lines have been reverted by BranchHistory, I am reluctant to contribute to this article as I believe, my edits will be reverted again (wasting my time/effort) by the same user. As I am not local to the area, I need to do my research to edit this article and it takes time/effort. Pinecar (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Annex

"Home Rule cities can annex property without landowner consent, while General Law cities need landowner consent."

I read from the city's official FAQ [1], the law has been updated in 2017, this distinction do not exist anymore.

Question to other editors: Can we remove the text about annexation in the article? Pinecar (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]