Talk:Austin, Texas

		This article was nominated for deletion on December 22, 2013. The result of the discussion was Edited and kept.

Okay, I'm confused... why not call the thing 'Austin, Texas'? Why 'ATX'? ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101010 - 23:44 (UTC)

I was going to use [[Austin]], but the deletion log wouldn't let me recreate [[Austin]], so I decided to use

[[ATX]] instead. I hope that ok. DJ Mixerr 23:04, October 12, 2010 (UTC) (talk)(contributions)

Also, [[ATX]] is what we (in Austin) also call the thing 'Austin, Texas'. DJ Mixerr 23:06, October 12, 2010 (UTC) (talk)(contributions)

You know, you only needed to put it one place or the other; I'd have seen it eventually. Talkpages just tend to be faster for these things. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101012 - 23:56 (UTC)

I thought it'd be better that way too. I kno. DJ Mixerr 00:40, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

I changed my mind. I'll do that. DJ Mixerr 00:45, October 13, 2010 (UTC) (talk)(contributions)

Pee Review

I need some suggestions to keep my article from being deleted again. DJ Mixerr 15:18, October 9, 2010 (UTC) (talk)(contributions)

Mmm, looks like I've been blackmailed into reviewing this. (Don't ask. Don't even think about asking.) At any rate, it shall be done on the day, one earth day, give or take a time zone and possibly a daylight savings time. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101023 - 22:00 (UTC)

Concept:	3	So, ATX, eh? The ATX, Austin, what is this place, capital of Texas, the... eh? Apparently it was moved, it contains a lot of suburbs nobody but that lives there will care about, it has a college and/or university, it contains a whole bunch of buildings, and you live there, yes? Thus is my impression upon reading your article. Never do you make any specific points or pull the various random information together into a cohesive whole, let alone demonstrate the notability of ATX or why we should even care. But this is not Wikipedia; here one must go further, make it funny. Satirise something about it. Make fun of the place, its inhabitants, or some other such related to it. At very least apply something to it as an overall joke. I found no overall joke, no main point, no concept at all. All your article appears to contain are non-topical paragraphs and lengthy lists of random facts that fail to coalesce into any commonality save that they all seem to have something to do with ATX, which is simply not enough to make it a worthy read. You need a main idea, an angle from which to approach it: a perspective and a joke. Something about the place; it need not even be true, necessarily, although the funnier ones usually, but something you stick to that has some form of irony or oddness about it; thus is the basis of humour. So choose something and stick to it throughout the piece - it can be anything from an idiot narrator raving about how awful the subject is and that it should be annihilated, to being overly silly about a serious topic or visa versa, or even being extremely overly serious about a serious topic, just to point out how silly it is to be so serious about it, to a highly intelligent narrator precisely dictating exactly why the subject is so awful and should be resolved... okay, maybe I like annihilating things a little too much, but follow what the HTBFANJS says. It has sense about it. Choose something and stick to it - each section should reinforce the overall joke/concept, and the smaller individual jokes will often both stem from and tie into the main, reinforcing it further.
Humour:	4	Now for some specifics about the general bits: The quotes - They are quite random. Useful quotes will introduce the subject and often either the angle from which the subject is approached, or perhaps an example of what's being argued against if it's an article like Yellow, not that Yellow does have quotes. The thing is, quotes, if they are there at all, need to tie into the main idea to be effective. One or two will more than suffice, and many articles don't even bother. Of yours, I cannot say which would have tied into the main idea due to the lack of a main idea, but the only one that even approached amusing to me was the Oscar Wilde quote. And Oscar Wilde has been done to death, literally. Introduction - this... doesn't even entirely introduce the subject; you merely say that it has a population, is the capital of texas, and repeat that it's called ATX a couple of times... okay? Why so why should the reader care? What's amusing about it? Why are you bothering, for that matter? History - It was moved? Why, what, when, from where, and why does that even matter? Apparently it doesn't, since after the one sentence on that, you immediately jump into just listing more 'facts'. Let alone the structure of proper paragraphing, facts are boring. Lists are boring. Random stuff made up is boring, unless it actually ties into something real, perhaps just themes, perhaps parallels to history or contemporary society... but even then it has to actually make a point. Be there for a reason. So why is any of this actually there? The thing is, history sections can be a great place to cement your main idea. Alter reality ever so slightly or even make it up completely with a funny story, but it can put past an present together and add to the cohesiveness of the entire thing. Music - Aaah, now it comes out, why the speaker (apparently you personally) is writing this thing... it's simply where you are from. It's not even a funny but a borderline vanity piece. Let's just say that's not good. Teh Population - It contains people... that's nice. Okay? Your numbers don't even add up... Food - Gross. But what does that have to do with the rest of it? Suburbs - Nice, long listy list of stuf that means absolutely nothing to those who do not live there. But even the comments for each one aren't funny; they're rich or they're poor? So what? Love, avoid listing stuff unless there is a very good reason. Seriously, lists are bad. What is Austin like? - This looks like it's just repetition of previous sections... and still just listing 'facts'. Not good. The Rest of Austin - Why are any of these places the way they are? You know, the The damn annoying hills!!! section looked promising. Some actual personality, from that title... but then it goes on to make next to no sense and then just repeats the title; bloody disappointing. You could have taken this one somewhere... things like that, while somewhat random, can ring true to the readers, and that will help immensely with readability and humour. All in all, though, I don't think this made me laugh once, although a couple of things might have if developed beyond a single sentence. Unfortunately, the article almost entirely consists of damn annoying lists, really.
Prose and formatting:	3	I wish I could say a proofreading could solve your trouble, here, but unfortunately that appears to be the least of your worries. The general structure of an encyclopaedia article, let alone a story, essay, or any other form of writing, usually follows a pattern of three parts - introduction to the topic, purpose, plot, etc, saying or better yet, demonstrating why the reader should care, some sort of main body that follows from the intro, supporting the purpose, building the plot, or just informing the reader in some sort of sensible fashion, and a conclusion, which, naturally, concludes the entire thing. Sums it up, puts it altogether, cements the point, or completes the story in some satisfying manner... or unsatisfying, if that's part of the joke, but there is always a reason for these things. There is a similar structure to paragraphing. No doubt, if you attended primary school, you were educated in constructing paragraphs out of a first sentence saying the topic, a couple saying more about it, and a final ending it... that is more structured than is usually actually used, but each paragraph should only deal with one idea. It may contain others to support that one, but beyond that, each new idea needs a new paragraph. This would solve your problem in which your paragraphs go all over the place, what few there are, but it will probably also make abundantly clear the fact that they are mostly just lists without a \n between each list object. Other stuff: Like I said, quotes are overrated, but they at least need to support your point. Lists are also bad. They're boring. All manner of people could be reading this; make sure it could also be funny to Lithuanians. Emphasising lines with caps just looks trashy; if you must, use italics or bold depending on why it's being emphasised. Teh? Moar? Unless you are attempting to make fun of the demographics that use such phrasing, it's best avoided, lest you become the target of such denigration. This thing contains way too many links, to the point where it makes the text more difficult to read. See how much other pages, especially featured ones and the like, link, and to what they do so - often, there are jokes embedded in the links themselves. Folks will link a seemingly innocent sentence to what they really mean, for instance, but there are many other uses as well. Another thing, though, once you have linked to another article, you really should not link to it again every time the same word pops up. One link is sufficient for each article to which you are linking. Linking headers to the main articles on their subjects is generally bad form. There is also a template for that - put {{man|[article name]}} on the next line after them, instead. To make subsections, add = to the header names, don't subtract them. Your subsections of The rest... currently have higher level headers than their parent. Use ===West=== instead of =West=, for instance. Don't start every sentence with the same thing. Don't even start them all with a noun; it just reads choppily. If you can vary the structures of your sentences, it should increase readibility. Unless they actually have some reason for being there, don't add extraneous templates.
Images:	5	Images exist to make things pretty... although in the case of articles, they're not just included for that, but to also reinforce the point/s of the article itself. At the article as a whole doesn't really seem to have a point, the images can't really support it well, but at very least they could be positioned more effectively - the state as a flag could be by the history, as that section contained the sentence pointing out that the capital had been moved, for instance. As for pretty, on the other hand, the images are spread out qquite strangely. There are several bunched at the top and two more looking shoved at the bottom - it would look a lot better, and probably make more sense, at that, if the images were more evenly spread through the article, and not as repeats of previous images, for that matter. Each image, however, should also be funny in some way, be it for the image itself or the caption. As none of these are particularly funny, it's up to their captions to redeem them... which for the most part, they don't. What does Under User's potato have to do with the founding, wherever it took place? And why repeat the potato at all? And the founder is now undead? And what does a Paint image have to do with a highway? At least the 'topographic map' could qualify as amusing misdirection, but the way it's shoved at the bottom of the article is just silly. Put it with the text.
Miscellaneous:	2	Meh.
Final Score:	17	I'll be blunt. In its current state, this is not good. Once you determine an actual angle from which to approach it and implement a less listy, more purposeful structure, however, you should find it will improve dramatically. Again, look at featured articles and the like for examples of what can work. Hopefully this will not put you off from trying again with an increased arsenal of understanding... Best of luck to you, then.
Reviewer:	Yo. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101024 - 19:01 (UTC)

3	Concept The idea, the angle, the grand funny of the article...
	So, ATX, eh? The ATX, Austin, what is this place, capital of Texas, the... eh? Apparently it was moved, it contains a lot of suburbs nobody but that lives there will care about, it has a college and/or university, it contains a whole bunch of buildings, and you live there, yes? Thus is my impression upon reading your article. Never do you make any specific points or pull the various random information together into a cohesive whole, let alone demonstrate the notability of ATX or why we should even care. But this is not Wikipedia; here one must go further, make it funny. Satirise something about it. Make fun of the place, its inhabitants, or some other such related to it. At very least apply something to it as an overall joke. I found no overall joke, no main point, no concept at all. All your article appears to contain are non-topical paragraphs and lengthy lists of random facts that fail to coalesce into any commonality save that they all seem to have something to do with ATX, which is simply not enough to make it a worthy read. You need a main idea, an angle from which to approach it: a perspective and a joke. Something about the place; it need not even be true, necessarily, although the funnier ones usually, but something you stick to that has some form of irony or oddness about it; thus is the basis of humour. So choose something and stick to it throughout the piece - it can be anything from an idiot narrator raving about how awful the subject is and that it should be annihilated, to being overly silly about a serious topic or visa versa, or even being extremely overly serious about a serious topic, just to point out how silly it is to be so serious about it, to a highly intelligent narrator precisely dictating exactly why the subject is so awful and should be resolved... okay, maybe I like annihilating things a little too much, but follow what the HTBFANJS says. It has sense about it. Choose something and stick to it - each section should reinforce the overall joke/concept, and the smaller individual jokes will often both stem from and tie into the main, reinforcing it further.
4	Humour The implementation, how funny the article comes out...
	Now for some specifics about the general bits: The quotes - They are quite random. Useful quotes will introduce the subject and often either the angle from which the subject is approached, or perhaps an example of what's being argued against if it's an article like Yellow, not that Yellow does have quotes. The thing is, quotes, if they are there at all, need to tie into the main idea to be effective. One or two will more than suffice, and many articles don't even bother. Of yours, I cannot say which would have tied into the main idea due to the lack of a main idea, but the only one that even approached amusing to me was the Oscar Wilde quote. And Oscar Wilde has been done to death, literally. Introduction - this... doesn't even entirely introduce the subject; you merely say that it has a population, is the capital of texas, and repeat that it's called ATX a couple of times... okay? Why so why should the reader care? What's amusing about it? Why are you bothering, for that matter? History - It was moved? Why, what, when, from where, and why does that even matter? Apparently it doesn't, since after the one sentence on that, you immediately jump into just listing more 'facts'. Let alone the structure of proper paragraphing, facts are boring. Lists are boring. Random stuff made up is boring, unless it actually ties into something real, perhaps just themes, perhaps parallels to history or contemporary society... but even then it has to actually make a point. Be there for a reason. So why is any of this actually there? The thing is, history sections can be a great place to cement your main idea. Alter reality ever so slightly or even make it up completely with a funny story, but it can put past an present together and add to the cohesiveness of the entire thing. Music - Aaah, now it comes out, why the speaker (apparently you personally) is writing this thing... it's simply where you are from. It's not even a funny but a borderline vanity piece. Let's just say that's not good. Teh Population - It contains people... that's nice. Okay? Your numbers don't even add up... Food - Gross. But what does that have to do with the rest of it? Suburbs - Nice, long listy list of stuf that means absolutely nothing to those who do not live there. But even the comments for each one aren't funny; they're rich or they're poor? So what? Love, avoid listing stuff unless there is a very good reason. Seriously, lists are bad. What is Austin like? - This looks like it's just repetition of previous sections... and still just listing 'facts'. Not good. The Rest of Austin - Why are any of these places the way they are? You know, the The damn annoying hills!!! section looked promising. Some actual personality, from that title... but then it goes on to make next to no sense and then just repeats the title; bloody disappointing. You could have taken this one somewhere... things like that, while somewhat random, can ring true to the readers, and that will help immensely with readability and humour. All in all, though, I don't think this made me laugh once, although a couple of things might have if developed beyond a single sentence. Unfortunately, the article almost entirely consists of damn annoying lists, really.
3	Prose and formatting Appearance, flow, overall presentation...
	I wish I could say a proofreading could solve your trouble, here, but unfortunately that appears to be the least of your worries. The general structure of an encyclopaedia article, let alone a story, essay, or any other form of writing, usually follows a pattern of three parts - introduction to the topic, purpose, plot, etc, saying or better yet, demonstrating why the reader should care, some sort of main body that follows from the intro, supporting the purpose, building the plot, or just informing the reader in some sort of sensible fashion, and a conclusion, which, naturally, concludes the entire thing. Sums it up, puts it altogether, cements the point, or completes the story in some satisfying manner... or unsatisfying, if that's part of the joke, but there is always a reason for these things. There is a similar structure to paragraphing. No doubt, if you attended primary school, you were educated in constructing paragraphs out of a first sentence saying the topic, a couple saying more about it, and a final ending it... that is more structured than is usually actually used, but each paragraph should only deal with one idea. It may contain others to support that one, but beyond that, each new idea needs a new paragraph. This would solve your problem in which your paragraphs go all over the place, what few there are, but it will probably also make abundantly clear the fact that they are mostly just lists without a \n between each list object. Other stuff: Like I said, quotes are overrated, but they at least need to support your point. Lists are also bad. They're boring. All manner of people could be reading this; make sure it could also be funny to Lithuanians. Emphasising lines with caps just looks trashy; if you must, use italics or bold depending on why it's being emphasised. Teh? Moar? Unless you are attempting to make fun of the demographics that use such phrasing, it's best avoided, lest you become the target of such denigration. This thing contains way too many links, to the point where it makes the text more difficult to read. See how much other pages, especially featured ones and the like, link, and to what they do so - often, there are jokes embedded in the links themselves. Folks will link a seemingly innocent sentence to what they really mean, for instance, but there are many other uses as well. Another thing, though, once you have linked to another article, you really should not link to it again every time the same word pops up. One link is sufficient for each article to which you are linking. Linking headers to the main articles on their subjects is generally bad form. There is also a template for that - put {{man|[article name]}} on the next line after them, instead. To make subsections, add = to the header names, don't subtract them. Your subsections of The rest... currently have higher level headers than their parent. Use ===West=== instead of =West=, for instance. Don't start every sentence with the same thing. Don't even start them all with a noun; it just reads choppily. If you can vary the structures of your sentences, it should increase readibility. Unless they actually have some reason for being there, don't add extraneous templates.
5	Images The graphics themselves, as well as their humour and relevance...
	Images exist to make things pretty... although in the case of articles, they're not just included for that, but to also reinforce the point/s of the article itself. At the article as a whole doesn't really seem to have a point, the images can't really support it well, but at very least they could be positioned more effectively - the state as a flag could be by the history, as that section contained the sentence pointing out that the capital had been moved, for instance. As for pretty, on the other hand, the images are spread out qquite strangely. There are several bunched at the top and two more looking shoved at the bottom - it would look a lot better, and probably make more sense, at that, if the images were more evenly spread through the article, and not as repeats of previous images, for that matter. Each image, however, should also be funny in some way, be it for the image itself or the caption. As none of these are particularly funny, it's up to their captions to redeem them... which for the most part, they don't. What does Under User's potato have to do with the founding, wherever it took place? And why repeat the potato at all? And the founder is now undead? And what does a Paint image have to do with a highway? At least the 'topographic map' could qualify as amusing misdirection, but the way it's shoved at the bottom of the article is just silly. Put it with the text.
2	Miscellaneous Anything else... or not...
	Meh.
17	Final score Yo. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101024 - 19:01 (UTC)
	I'll be blunt. In its current state, this is not good. Once you determine an actual angle from which to approach it and implement a less listy, more purposeful structure, however, you should find it will improve dramatically. Again, look at featured articles and the like for examples of what can work. Hopefully this will not put you off from trying again with an increased arsenal of understanding... Best of luck to you, then.

Keep Austin Weird

"Keep Austin Weird" is the slogan adopted by the Austin Independent Business Alliance to promote small businesses in Austin, Texas. The phrase arose from an offhand remark by Red Wassenich (a librarian at Austin Community College) in a phone call to a local radio station. He and his wife, Karen Pavelka, placed the slogan on bumper stickers, distributing them free to businesses in Austin. Austin's message of support for local businesses has inspired similar movements in other cities, including Denton, Texas; San Antonio, Texas; Santa Cruz, California; Portland, Oregon; Detroit, Michigan; Fayetteville, Arkansas; Indianapolis, Indiana; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Duluth, Minnesota; New York City, New York; Los Angeles, California; San Francisco, California; and Boulder, Colorado. DJ Mixerr 03:33, January 28, 2011 (UTC) (talk)(contributions)