Jump to content

Talk:Lower Rio Grande Valley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 17 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jmjosh90.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Map

[edit]
Heyo! I changed the map in the infobox from the state of Texas map to the geographic map because it was more inclusive of the area. I wish there was a better combination of the two maps but unfortunately, there isn't one. Feel free to add one if you can find it. :)
Joshua 05:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I made a few maps that more accurately define the region and have added them to the infobox and geography sections.
Jmjosh90 (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

folklore doesn't belong because it is not verifiable.

William Jennings Bryan did live in the Rio Grand Valley. We even have a Historical Marker designating the house he lived in. Many "verifiable" items are here: http://www.mission.lib.tx.us/exhibits/bryan/resource/mission.htm

BobGeissler 22:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delta?

[edit]

It seems to me the Valley isn't a river delta either, but rather a floodplain. The Rio Grande flows directly into the Gulf of Mexico with only one mouth, doesn't it? It doesn't branch out in a triangular shape like the Mississippi or the Nile. User:Angr 16:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lower Rio Grande Valley?

[edit]

When I lived in "the Valley," I know that people used the term to refer to the same area described in this article. However, my experience says that people in Laredo and El Paso sometimes consider themselves to live in the RGV as well. Some people seem to use "lower Rio Grande Valley" to specify the Starr-Hidalgo-Willacy-Cameron segment. I'm not saying we junk the definition or the article -- just seems we should mention the ambiguity and/or alternative terms.Lawikitejana 07:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Albuquerque and other places along the Rio Grande have some educated people who travel now and then. The average person in Pharr or Starr County has no idea that the Rio Grande extends across a larger area. So people in the Lower Rio Grande Floodplain (not a valley) of Texas think they have some exclusive right to the term.69.171.160.67 (talk)

I don't agree that people from as far away as El Paso or Laredo consider themselves part of the RGV. If you have any info to dispute that claim, fire away. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Bob_Geissler (talk • contribs) . Jaedza 11:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is another Rio Grande Valley in New Mexico (called Upper RGV). Sometimes it can lead to confusion, but they don't generally call themselves residents of the RGV. The proper name is the Lower Rio Grande Valley to distinguish from the Upper RGV. As for residents of Laredo or El Paso calling themselves residents of the RGV, they can call themselves whatever they want; it doesn't make it true.Prometheusg 10:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do keep in mind that one voice against thousands doesnt mean its not verifyable. if thousands of people say something is true then it has to be unless there is a higher number of people against them. Maverick423 21:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rio Grande Valley, which consists of Starr, Hidalgo, Willacy, and Cameron county is known as the "Valley""RGV" by its more than 1.3 million people. Have lived in the Rio Grande Valley all my life, I have never heard the idea that people from either Laredo or El Paso consider themselves residents of the Rio Grande Valley. By the way the Rio Grande Valley is divided into its own upper and lower regions.


I have lived in the RGV all my life as well (yes the one your talking about im a resident of Pharr) anyways its true i havent heard of others calling themselvs the RGV but here is someone claiming that where he lives is also called the RGV, so all im saying is there might be some truth in that now if the person above can prove it with a source or a link or anything then we can say there is another RGV. this really wont effect this article though but at least it will silence the skirmish about this. User:Maverick423 If It Looks Good Nuke It 16:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

It is coming into use more and more that the Upper Rio Grande Valley signifies the McAllen area and the Lower Rio Grande Valley means Brownsville and South Padre IslandMcallen123 (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for Laredo, but the local media in El Paso generally refers to the "Upper El Paso Valley" or "Upper Valley" from downtown to Anthony and the "Lower El Paso Valley" or "Lower Valley" from downtown to the farming communities along the river in El Paso and Hudspeth counties. On the Chihuahua side, the farming communities down river from Ciudad Juárez are referred to in the Spanish local media as "El Valle de Juárez" Fortguy (talk) 04:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] 

The Rio Grande does extend across a HUGE region. People in Albuquerque also use the therm Rio Grande Valley for their region. 69.171.160.67 (talk)

Also there are arguements for inclusion of Reynosa and Tamaulipas in the LRGV. Does this merit a name-change or perhaps an inclusion of the Mexican half? Joshua 14:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmjosh90 (talk • contribs)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rio Grande Valley. 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:

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) 02:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

a copy of article on Brownsville

[edit]

Large portions of this article were copied from the article Brownsville, Texas. This article needs to be rewritten to describe the Rio Grande Valley more generally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.178.54 (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction changes

[edit]

I hope to be able to improve this article by adding some contextual details with whatever references I can find in my university library. I have begun with a short addition to the introduction and hope to add more soon. Joshua 04:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmjosh90 (talk • contribs)

SIGNIFICANT EDITS

[edit]
Hello! I've written a significant addition about the region's history for the article and am now in the process of moving it from User:Your jmjosh90/sandbox Please give it a look through and a critical eye. Thanks! Jmjosh90 (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

The name seems too general to be about one specific region of the Rio Grande Valley. I understand many people in that specific region calls it by this name, but I have lived all up and down this river as far south as El Paso, and literally everyone everywhere in the settlements along the river in the US call their stretch the "Rio Grande Valley". It is used by locals, companies, even in local news1234. But very few valley dwellers outside this specific region and adjacent ones, other than the AP, have ever thought it would refer to the region specified in this article. The namespace Rio Grande Valley would serve far more to the average reader if it links to the disambiguation page instead, as it does indeed give the impression that this is the only place to use this name for the river valley when it isn't. I therefore propose to move the page, or some other solution if one is put forth. Stay healthy! Kehkou (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked to revert your page move, as it was undiscussed. If you would like, you can open up a formal move request to move this page. Natg 19 (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you Natg 19, truly, but before a formal request, I want to be sure there are no better solutions first. I found that the process goes more smoothly that way, and 'no consensus' is better avoided, when discussions for contested page moves are requested. Conversely, formal discussion can indeed yield significant change even if a consensus on no move is reached. Kehkou (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 May 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Lower Rio Grande Valley per WP:NOGOODOPTIONS. This is the third time I've come to close this RM, and it's due time to cut the Gordian knot. There is a spectrum of reasonable arguments between those that this RGV is the PTOPIC among all parts of the valley, to those that it entirely fails WP:PRECISION and should include "lower" or "south" in the title to match its scope. The majority prefers some kind of disambiguation, and "lower" seems WP:NATURAL enough (being used in the article) and neutral (since it includes Mexican part as well). No such user (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate between Rio Grande Valley (New Mexico). As quoted before:

"The name seems too general to be about one specific region of the Rio Grande Valley. I understand many people in that specific region calls it by this name, but I have lived all up and down this river as far south as El Paso, and literally everyone, everywhere in the settlements along the river in the US call their stretch the "Rio Grande Valley". It is used by locals, companies, even in local news1234. But very few valley dwellers outside this specific region and adjacent ones, other than the AP, have ever thought it would refer to the region specified in this article. The namespace Rio Grande Valley would serve far more to the average reader if it links to, or better yet, replaces the disambiguation page instead, as it does indeed give the impression that this is the only place to use this name for the river valley when it isn't."

Indeed, several pages erroneously link to this article when referencing other areas of the actual valley. Kehkou (talk) 12:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. (t · c) buidhe 03:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is another article on the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, that would be unnecessary over-disambiguation. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, fellow Chucano! That idea can be best reserved for the future if an article on the UV and LV in El Paso is published and similarly named. There is very interesting history there too...Kehkou (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You New Mexicans talk funny. I should know, I married one! Here we are in Las Cruces (Mesilla Park, pretty close to the RGV). Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How cool! Red Slash 23:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Rio Grande Valley → Rio Grande Valley (Texas), because there is more than one so called "Rio Grande Valley" region in Texas.
    Support Rio Grande Valley → something, possibly "Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas" or "Rio Grande Plain", the reasons being that these are actual usages while the present casual name seems to lead to mistaken links.
First, it really needs to be agreed upon what the present page is really about, whether it is notable, and what the best name for its specific notability should be, and then rename such that it is not linked to by others who are referring to other regional "Rio Grande Valleys".
I have interest in the Rio Grande Valley of northern New Mexico, which might be more properly called "Rio Grande Basin and Range", "Upper Rio Grande Basin", etc. Moreover, while my interest spans north and south of Santa Fe, where there is a general geographic, geologic, and Rio Grande Valley/Basin; but, there as are also general geographic, geologic, and cultural breaks north and south of Santa Fe.
See Texas Almanac - Physical Regions of Texas
A river's main topic (Rio Grande) is maybe not the place to best discuss particular notable subdivisions of the river's area. Does "Upper Rio Grande" include the Pecos or not? Maybe, maybe not, depending on the subject.
The original text of this pages was "The Rio Grande Valley is the southernmost tip of Texas." with the page clearly maintaining that narrow topic; the page title should clearly indicate that the page is a narrow topic.
Given a more proper page title for what presently seems to the the topic of the page, there is no reason the page could not also state in the lead that the region is commonly named Rio Grande Valley.
IveGoneAway (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (southern Texas) - ambiguous titles are not preferred unless there is a real claim to primary topic Red Slash 23:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Is there evidence this isn't the primary topic? By page views it seems to overwhelmingly be, getting around 350 daily views, compared to what seems to be in the single digits for the others. And a search in Google News, Search or Books seems to bring up almost only this subject. It's described simply as the Rio Grande Valley in non-local national news coverage and government material. Anecdotally, I'm not from Texas but I think most people outside of the region nearly universally think of this one when they hear the name.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that opposition is mostly based on the desire to see a more unambiguous name like Lower Rio Grande Valley (Texas). I do see your guys' points and would certainly agree, assuming that that is a common usage. Does anyone who supported the originally proposed title also agree? Kehkou (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • From its original posting to June 2021, the page titled Rio Grande Valley exclusively described a cultural region of Texas that roughly corresponds with the Texas physiographic region defined as Lower Rio Grande Valley. The page at that time made no coverage of the remainder of the River, nor acknowledgement of the application of the term in other U.S. States or Mexico that have valleys formed of the river's drainage.
@力:
"from my perspective in the Midwest US, RGV unambiguously refers to the region of South Texas."
From my possibly well-traveled perspective in the I-70 Midwest US, knowing the well-recognized name and course of the Rio Grande River, I had never had reason to hear of The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley (formed in 2012 from merger of Brownsville/Southmost/Pan American (that is, it is no KU)). But, I don't follow NCAA. But, my wife does and she had to look it up.
@Yaksar:
"Is there evidence this isn't the primary topic? By page views it seems to overwhelmingly be, getting around 350 daily views,"
The high rate of views could be due to following links that assume the target is about the whole valley, or some other part of the valley, not just the remote tip of Texas, and just the Texas side.
How many of those views resulted in confusion in readers expecting discussion of some other part of the valley with maybe broader interest, say El Paso, disappointment in readers wanting to read about some specific part of the whole Rio Grande Valley because the page covers only a very narrow example of places called Rio Grande Valley, or misinformation to some readers the title is mis-linked as representing Wikipedia's discussion of regions in Mexico, New Mexico, and Colorado.
I see the page presently gives the common name as The Valley; last week I drove through the headwaters of the Rio Grand, which is also referred to locally as The Valley (all though San Luis Valley would be the more formal name of that region of the greater Rio Grande watershed).
Pages presently with clearly mistaken links to the page about the South Texas region:
History of Mexican Americans; the link is in context of Francisco Vázquez de Coronado's expedition up the Rio Grande through New Mexico into Colorado.
New Mexican cuisine; "[New Mexico chile] is also grown along the entire Rio Grande Valley," Really, New Mexico chile is only grown in the south tip of Texas?!?!?! Indeed.
Navajo-Churro; "By the 17th century Churros were popular with the Spanish settlers in the upper Rio Grande Valley." Not Texas at all, but , obviously New Mexico (well, maaaybe El Pass). Last week, I only noticed one flock in the valley, and it was in Colorado.
Sandia Crest; actually first thing I think of when I hear "Rio Grand Valley", having camped there a few times.
West Potrillo Mountains, Tularosa Basin, Pueblo pottery; nope, clearly not referring to South Texas.
Somebody in Boots; actually about the Upper Rio Grande Valley of Texas, which the present RGV page clearly excludes.
December 1989 United States cold wave; "The wave extended all the way into Mexico's lower Rio Grande Valley," By covering only the division of the Texas state, the present RGV page clearly excludes the neighboring Mexican side of the valley.
If anything, my primary association of Rio Grande Valley (aside from border issues) is definitely within New Mexico in general, Albuquerque in particular.
Calvary Chapel Rio Grande Valley, Belen, New Mexico
Rio Grande Valley Church of Christ, Belen, New Mexico
Rio Grande Valley Casa, Truth or Consequences, New Mexico
Rio Grande Valley State Park, Belen, New Mexico
Great Old Broads For Wilderness > Local Broadbands > New Mexico – Rio Grande Valley – Albuquerque
Water resources of the Rio Grande Valley in New Mexico and their development, USGS
The Manzano Group of the Rio Grande valley, New Mexico, USGS
IveGoneAway (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the examples. But this doesn't seem to demonstrate there is not a clear primary topic, only that there are other places named Rio Grande Valley, and that in their very small vicinity they may be referenced without disambiguation. The general ways we judge a primary topic make this abundantly clear:
  • In regular usage, the current page is a very clear primary topic. A search for "Rio Grande Valley" on Google, or Google News, or Google Books pretty much only brings up results for this one -- I've scrolled a few pages in, and I have found nothing else.
  • National and international news coverage of the subject, outside of sources from region, almost only refers to this one. When it refers to others, it clarifies ("in New Mexico" for example) -- otherwise, if you're seeing "Rio Grande Valley" in the NY Times or Washington Post or Chicago Tribune or BBC, it's referring to the Texas one.
  • On page views, even when taking into account readers intending to end up at the other topics, there is still a very obvious primary. While a portion of the page views for this one are likely those readers looking for a different option, the page numbers here still dwarf the alternatives, and it would be outright silly to assume that a majority of readers are looking for the New Mexico page and then somehow choose not to click through to it (as well as grossly inconsistent with the obvious primary topic from Google searches and usage in reliable sources).
In short, the overwhelming majority of readers are seeking the clear primary topic, and we should include hatnotes up top to get others to the page they want. To do as proposed is disruptive, not helpful for readers, and would be like requiring all users searching Paris to go to a disambiguation page because sometimes it refers to Paris, Texas.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support disambiguation and even additional disambiguation between the two Texas versions. As shown, editors are incorrectly applying these links and readers are harmed by landing on pages they didn't mean to read (and might not even know it). Making the base name a disambiguation page lets automatic tools inform editors when they use the dab page which would allow them to fix the link to their correct title. Gonnym (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure the proposed Rio Grande Valley (Texas). Some say “Southern Texas” is required. I say the proposed is unreasonably US centric, as the valley is also in the state of Tamaulipas, Mexico. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Out of curiosity, for those who do not live in TX or NM, how many results do others go through for a Google (or search engine of your choice) search for Rio Grande Valley before they get to a topic other than this one? I stopped around page 7.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually in NM, so I can't answer fully, but from here I get a myriad of local businesses (of course), the state park, and a bunch of news stories about flooding in south Texas and northeast Mexico.

That brings up a good point made by SmokeyJoe: we shouldn't leave out Mexico; it's their basin too. Perhaps at the meat of it, one article is about a region and the other of a river valley. Maybe Rio Grande Valley (region) would be more appropriate. That leaves room for the valley article to expand in the future beyond the scope of just New Mexico, in a new namespace i.e. Rio Grande Valley (landform). Kehkou (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we might want to apply WP:CONCEPTDAB here - these are all talking about parts of the same thing - parts of the valley of the Rio Grande river - so we can have a broad concept article on that, then sub-articles like "Rio Grande Valley in South Texas" (or whatever disambiguation is preferred, but do it like that). Elli (talk | contribs) 20:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From the intro (and parts of this article) it seems like this one actually IS about both the Texas and Mexico parts -- it's just unfortunately weighted heavily towards the Texas info.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yaksar asked me on my talk page to clarify what to do with the Rio Grande Valley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page, since I didn't move Rio Grande Valley (disambiguation) to its place. Indeed, at the closure time I overlooked that it was part of the original proposal. Re-reading the discussion, its destiny was not extensively discussed. When I decided to move this page, I left the redirect for convenience (otherwise, most links would have to be retargeted, there's currently 41 from mainspace).
So, I suppose it's a "no consensus" about it from the above discussion, and it should be subject of an additional editorial decision. Removing my closer's hat, I suppose that once we decided to "disambiguate" this one, the base title should be a disambiguation page (or, better still, a WP:CONCEPTDAB, but nobody has written it so far). No such user (talk) 07:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying! Given the evidence discussed and focus of the discussion above, it seems like we'd need to have a separate move discussion (or just a discussion in general) to find if there is a consensus on moving the DAB page too. From both usage, page views, reliable sourcing, and significance, it appears there is a clear primary topic here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lower_Rio_Grande_Valley&oldid=1235879034"