Jump to content

Talk:Houston/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Houston as a world city, or as 1 of 11 US world cities

There seems to be a bit of a revert war over this one. Discussion here:

I suggest that the fact that Houston is 1 of 11 US world cities should not be mentioned:

  1. None of the other US world cities have mentioned this.
  2. To state that Houston is 1 of 11 implies equality amongst those 11, whereas the qualification of "world city" has a discrete ranking associated with it.

Other opinions?--Loodog 19:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you for the above mentioned reasons. It should either be listed as a "Gamma" or just not at all given that there are many many US and international cities ranked above Houston. Extremely misleading to say it is of 1 of 11 US cities.

loser9300

Yes, other cities have mentioned this. Go check. Furthermore, just because it is not found in another city article does not mean it has to be removed. Extremely misleading to say it is of 1 of 11 US cities?? It IS one of 11 US cities. Postoak 22:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The 11 US cities are: 1. New York 2. Chicago 3. Los Angeles 4. San Francisco 5. Boston 6. Dallas 7. Houston 8. Washington DC 9. Atlanta 10. Miami 11. Minneapolis

Are these not 11 US world class cities? Isn't Houston 1 of these 11 cities?? Postoak 22:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Loser9300 (talk · contribs · block log) and Eoedp03939 (talk · contribs · block log) are sockpuppet accounts created just to edit the lead section of this article. —RJN 01:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This is true; though, as per my comment #2, this truth makes (IMO) implications that aren't true. Also, the reason I look to other articles is to create some kind of consistency in wikipedia. Granted all cases are distinct, but we should work from precedents whenever possible.
My vote is to remove the "1 of 11" note. Let's reach concensus before changing though.--Loodog 01:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I oppose changing this in the lead section because it should be short and simple—Houston is one of 11 U.S. global cities. I will put the "Gamma" in the body text of the "Culture" section where "world-class city" is mentioned again. —RJN 01:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
My vote is to leave it as is. Postoak 02:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Clarity is always better than ambigous and misleading statements. The study has gone to great lengths to rank cities according to classification, it does not list all general world cities together or by country or by hemisphere. RJN, how does listing Houston as 1 of 11 make the section any simpler or shorter? I would argue that replacing the phrase with "Gamma" would certainly make the section simpler given the clarity and would not effect the length. I vote to remove 1 of 11 with Gamma city, simply delete it entirely, or as a compromise list the 1 of 11 under culture and Gamma up top. How is 1 of 11 to be understood, Houston is more influential than San Francisco, or less influ. than Miami, or all equal?) If we list 1 of 11 then shouldn't we also list all of the American cities in order? Should we list all of the international cities that are more influential and less as well? Why not just put Gamma and be done with it. I'm new to wikipedia so I don't know, but to what extent is boosterism accepted on city articles?

loser9300

Why should we put Gamma and be done with it? OK, then let's clarify the ambiguity. I propose we "work from precedents" and review similar statements at other city articles. (note the lack of boosterism in these examples):
Boston (Boston is also a featured article) - Founded in 1630, Boston is one of the oldest and most culturally significant cities in the United States, and is recognized as a global or world city.
Miami - The region's importance as an international financial and cultural center has elevated Miami to the status of world city; because of its cultural and linguistic ties to North, South, and Central America, and the Caribbean it is sometimes called "The Gateway of the Americas."
I propose "Houston is recognized as a global or world city by the Globalization and World Cities Study Group & Network" or leave it as is. Postoak 23:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
"to what extent is boosterism accepted on city articles?" It isn't. All articles are supposed to be cold facts with as little overstatement as possible. See: Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms--Loodog 17:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
"work from precedents"

6 of the 11 American cities directly mention classification; Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami(under economy), San francisco, Minneapolis, and Atlanta. In addition, New York doesn't list alpha, but talks of being a top global city along with Tokyo and London. It is very clear in the article where New York stands in comparison to other global cities.

Boston mentions being global, but does not mention classification.

Dallas and Houston mention being 1 of 11 us global cities.

D.C. makes no mention of being a global city.

Didn't really check a lot of non american cities, but those I tend to mention classification if mentioning the global city study. loser9300

Okay. If there are no objections, I'm going to change it to "Houston is recognized as a global or world city by the Globalization and World Cities Study Group & Network".--Loodog 19:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Relevance? When I read this fact, I think "SO WHAT?". What does it mean to be called global by this website? Even on their list, Houston falls under "minor" global cities. If the Globalization and World Cities Study Group and Network is important to Houston, then it should be written up and cited for every other corresponding city article on their list. Deatonjr 04:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"then it should be written up and cited for every other corresponding city article on their list" It is.--Loodog 04:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
That's what I understood. Postoak 05:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced claims in Politics section

Unsourced: Houston is considered to be a politically divided city whose balance of power often sways between Republicans and Democrats. The affluent western-central portions of Houston—such as River Oaks and the Memorial/Spring Branch area—consistently vote Republican, while many of the inner city neighborhoods are heavily Democratic. The communities of Kingwood and Clear Lake City in the northeast and southeast portions of the city, respectively, are heavily Republican. Ufwuct 06:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Built on desert?

There is no desert in Houston and the nearest desert is hundreds of miles away. There have been no deserts anywhere near Houston in historical times, so it could not have been built on desert either. Even the driest year on record (1917), had 17.66 inches of precipitation, which would make it much wetter than the traditional 10 inch cutoff for deserts. Ufwuct 16:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... I don't see anything about a desert. Tennis DyNamiTe (sign here) 23:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed it already. I could have sworn though, that I have removed that before. Ufwuct 23:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Tennis DyNamiTe (sign here) 23:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced Re: Ellington Field

Passenger flights, however, ended on September 7, 2004.

I couldn't find a source on this anywhere, and that includes at Ellington Field. If anyone wants to put the effort in to find a source, please do. Thanks. Ufwuct 23:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced Re: 1970s construction boom

I removed this part

8.7 million square feet (870,000 m²) of office space planned or under construction and

from the following sentence:

Downtown was on the threshold of a boom in 1970 with 8.7 million square feet (870,000 m²) of office space planned or under construction and huge projects being launched by real estate developers with the energy industry boom.

I would assume that the editor who added this did not just add some random number and was actually getting this from a source. If you are the editor or you know where this tidbit comes from, please let me know what the source is so that I can add it to the article. Ufwuct 01:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Population age

probably true, but that's not what we get from the provided source. "Face of Texas" says Texas is young. PDF is comparing selected cities, not all

The source provided compares all but one (Tampa) of the prinicipal cities of the top 25 metro areas. It's a pretty representative sample. I didn't claim the third youngest in the U.S., but "among the youngest". Texas has the second youngest median age of any state, behind only Mormon Utah. Houston has a younger median age than the state of Texas. So I think it is a very safe assertion to say that Houston has among the youngest populations. I have not provided the Census Bureau information before because it is easily available and usually the first place a skeptic would look, but I will add it here now for clarification. Ufwuct 16:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That's just sick

With refs, the article file size is 65 kB and therefore "too long". Without refs, the article file size is 43 kB, which is > 33 kB, but still fairly low. I hope they do not now begin to count this (file size) against this article's FA nomination. Ufwuct 18:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

These things aren't set in stone. Wikipedia is more capricious and inconsistent than most wikipedians believe. Compare Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/San Francisco, California. Somehow San Francisco was a FA with 81kb while NYC is a terse and complete article at 65kb, even though the city has had an extra 2 centuries of history and 10 times the population.--Loodog 19:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It's sometimes a question of luck. Hopefully we'll get some luck to come our way. Ufwuct 19:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Houston Freeways

I was pleased to see a reference to Slotboom's "Houston Freeways" in the article. I remember this book from working at a bookstore - it's one of the most fascinating books I've ever seen about Houston. It's interesting that there were only 5,000 copies made and the book is now out-of-print. Deatonjr 16:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen it in hardcopy, but yeah, it's a good book. Ufwuct 17:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Politics

I removed this because it is unsourced.

According to the 2005 Houston Area Survey, 67 percent of non-Hispanic whites in the city are declared or favor Republicans while 88 percent of non-Hispanic blacks in the city are declared or favor Democrats. About 58 percent Hispanics (of any race) in the city are declared or favor Democrats.

Houston is considered to be a politically divided city whose balance of power often sways between Republicans and Democrats. The affluent western-central portions of Houston—such as River Oaks and the Memorial/Spring Branch area—consistently vote Republican, as do several of the city's far western and northwestern areas and the communities of Kingwood and Clear Lake City in the northeast and southeast portions of the city, respectively.

Meanwhile, many of the inner city neighborhoods, mainly predominantly Hispanic and African-American inner loop neighborhoods such as Acres Homes and Houston Heights (known locally as "the Heights") are heavily Democratic, along with much of southwest Houston and the city's northern, eastern and southern neighborhoods. Most of Houston's suburbs, including The Woodlands (north), Katy (west), the Cypress-Fairbanks area (northwest), Sugar Land (southwest), League City (southeast), and Pearland, are heavily Republican.

Postoak 04:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

...Houston is mainly Democratic though, isn't it?--68.201.118.165 13:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Houston Music Scene

Mention of the Houston hip-hop scene is important to this article. It is a prominent fixture in the current scene here. The city is home to many important artists whom all share a local style and roots. (Mike Jones, Bun B, Slim Thug, Paul Wall and the late DJ Screw, to name just a few.) Houston hip hop There should also be something included about the music scene in Houston or local artists, but I need suggestions on how to organize such an addition. Is there any such unified scene in this city? It seems the scene here has always lacked unity and definition, with so many different venues and artists spread out all over the place. Deatonjr 02:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

There are other music scenes in Houston that are equally important to this article. I think a paragraph describing several of the popular scenes and local artists, past and present, would be great in the Culture section. Postoak 04:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
LMAO! There is an entire article in this week's Houston Press about how Houston's music scene has historically been totally unnoteworthy.

Lomax, John Nova. "Nobody Gets Out of Here Alive - The Houston Rock Scene and the Cultural Cringe", Houston Press, Feb 1, 2007.

Deatonjr 15:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The abovementioned article cites Wikipedia a couple of times, including the article on Houston noise bands, and cultural cringe. Deatonjr 15:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Useful comments, Deatonjr, so the editors knew to emphasize the hip-hop in the paragraph about music in this article. A friend of mine, who is in the music industry, read the current version, and the first thing he said was that they (Wikipedia) got the Houston music scene right on because they knew it had a somethinging hip-hop scene. KP Botany 01:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Well as far as the Houston music scene goes, that author can speak for rock alone, because the hip-hop/r&b scene is thriving. You have Destiny's Child. The number one selling female group of all time with a former lead singer who is now one of history's most prosperous entertainers. Houston is also home to a rap scene that has had world wide recognition for more than 15 years with several talented lyricists that are respected throughout the nation. It's never been the super city for black music but it's getting there.--68.201.118.165 13:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Image Sizing

As a visitor to this article from WP:CITY, I notice a lot of the images are using fixed pixel sizing. I find that the default thumbnail size works well for images and lends itself to good text readability. I also notice an alternating left to right system has been used for the image placement. I find an article easier to read with all of the images on the right side as I we read from left to right. Does anyone object to changing the images to right side placement only? Alan.ca 06:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct subject order

The sub-articles need to remain consistent with the Houston main article. For example, crime statistics are under Government and Politics on the Houston article, but expanded on in the Demographics of Houston aricle. Deatonjr 02:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

3 Additional FAC Concerns

  • Industrialization of the port increased because of the demand for petroleum and synthetic rubber products during the war.
I don't understand this? Do you mean the numbers of industries in the port area expanded? Or infrastructure at the port was built up?
  • City council members, who also have a three-term limit, are elected from nine districts in the city, along with five at-large positions. At-large council members represent the entire city.[46] The current city council line-up was based on a U.S. Justice Department mandate which took effect in 1979.[48]
What I think you mean to say, is " This current city council line-up of 9 district based and five at large positions was based on a U.S. Justice Department mandate which took effect in 1979
  • UH is the only doctoral degree granting comprehensive research institution in East Texas with more than 40 research centers and institutes.
No, Rice is one also.

Yes, it would have been more useful to do it during peer review, but I never would have volunteered to peer review a city article, as I loathe reading them. Excellent job to all of the editors who worked on this article, and to Postoak for putting in all the effort to make this a FA, as I'm sure it will gain sufficient support now to be one. KP Botany 19:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerns have been corrected. Thanks Postoak 00:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Houston Urban Area Population Question

Where are you guys finding 2005 numbers for Urban Areas? I'm pretty sure the Census only releases those every 10 years. --Criticalthinker 11:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand, the population number is from a 2005 U.S. Census estimate. I'll look into clarifying this later, if the other editors have not already. Slof 18:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The figure is from the UN World Urbanization Prospects, which uses the U.S. Census urbanized area definition. The actual figure listed in the 2005 edition may have been updated slightly from what is in the article (which was based on the 2003 edition). See [1] here for details. --Polaron | Talk 19:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The 2005 estimates can be found on the census.gov website. Try this link, it should take you directly to the 2005 estimates for the city of Houston, which does not include the metropolitain area population. -- RedPoptarts 21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
City 2005 estimate: 2,016,582 link
Urban 2005 estimate : 4,320,000 [[2]]
Metro 2005 estimate : 5,273,595 [[3]]

I added refs and updated the infobox. Postoak 07:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Houston's Eastside Vietnamese villages

I found this Houston Press article: http://www.houstonpress.com/2005-12-15/news/tale-of-two-cities/full

I am not sure about where I should write about Houston's Eastside Vietnamese villages. WhisperToMe 05:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

A single sentence the last paragraph of the demographics section seems like a good fit, if your stuff isn't repetitive of what's already there. — Rebelguys2 talk 05:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
That article is about Vietnamese culture. Put it in the cultures of houston article. Demographics is more about population statistics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deatonjr (talk • contribs) 11:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Featured article

I am excited to see that Houston is now a featured article, which I did not think would ever happen! I am kind of glad I took a two-month wikibreak while this was going through FAC because I probably wouldn't have been able to handle all the criticisms I saw posted. I have wanted this to be a featured article ever since I started editing Wikipedia back in April 2005. Great job everyone, especially to Postoak! I am glad other people became interested and started contributing to this article. In the past, there weren't that many people editing regularly and wanting this article to reach FA. In the end, I do apologize for not being here while this was going through the FAC process to help out and that Postoak had to do it all by himself. —RJN 09:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Southern culture

After my trip to San Antonio recently, I saw that this article lack two (2) important aspects: the mentioning of Southern and East Texas cultures.

I have always aligned myself with the Southwest up until my trip to San Antonio in mid-February of this year. After this experience, I can say is Houston is culturally East Texas and definately part of the South. It took me the trip to San Antonio to realize this about myself and the Houston area. During my stay in San Antonio, I discovered that there was nothing about me that was part of the Southwest. Then it hit me that I truly grew up in East Texas with Southern values. The people in San Antonio were different and definately do not have that Southern hospitality like we do here in East Texas. In addition, life in SA seems to be much slower than in Houston and felt like I was in an American city of the early 1980s. San Antonio is culturally South Texas and definately part of the the Southwest in culture, architecture, and the terrain. In contrast, Houston is swamp land—a characteristic of East Texas.

I thought it would be important to mention the East Texas characteristics and Southern culture of Houstonians in the article. I am now proud to be an East Texan and part of the Southern culture and values! East Texas is beautiful, moist, and green. I am glad I went to see San Antonio. A new light has shed on how I feel about Houston and East Texas after seeing how dirty and unaesthetic SA was during my visit. It was a major dissapointment when I saw their downtown, which happens to be smaller than our Uptown district. Houston is so clean compared to San Antonio and I was glad to be back in East Texas after my trip. SA is definately not the South! Any thoughts regarding Houston being culturally East Texas and part of the South or how SA is not part of the Southwest? —RJN 10:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

    • I attended Trinity University in San Antonio for over two years. During that time, I always thought of San Antonio as a city roughly the size of Houston, but with about 1/3 as many people. It combines elements of the Hill Country and southern Texas. The population is diverse, but the hispanic culture in particular is more prominent and ingrained than in Houston. Houston is East Texas, but it really lies on the border of what is geographically known as East Texas (the piney woods) and the gulf coast plains. San Antonio looks and feels older becsuse it IS older. They also don't have extra billions of dollars flowing through the city to build new flashy skyscrapers all the time (see Enron), although the city IS the headquarters to Valero, the nations largest oil refining company. When I think of San Antonio, I think of its military bases, it's historic neighborhoods (Alamo Heights, downtown, the missions), its historically underdeveloped south side, and its upper class north side.

As for Houston culture..... it is a topic to itself. I recently edited the East Texas article, which attempted to define East Texas culture by racial composition. That doesn't fly well with me. But that also raises the question, what IS East Texas culture, if any? I don't think it can really be defined. I believe Texas as a whole is more hospitable than other parts of the country, but when it comes to cities Houston is just as urban and gritty as the rest of them. Deatonjr 11:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

native americans

Is there any information on what kinds of Native Americans lived in the area now called Houston? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.65.163.246 (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Both the Lumbee and Cherokee tribes were believed to inhabit this area, particularly along the Buffalo Bayou. In later years, the higher concentration of the Cherokee peoples would be found in the southeastern states, eventually to find home in Oklahoma. Today, only a small number of their descendants are found in the Houston area, and these descendants are most likely blacks from the Cherokee Freedmen group tree that finds its roots in states like Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee.--Mphifer254 22:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks, but I was informed that the Karankawa, Caddo, and Atakapa tribes inhabited in what is now today Houston's suburbs. I'm not to sure if we can put all of this in the article. I mean it's important to know what tribes were here.

That's beautiful but it doesn't take away from the fact that there was a point in history before the city of Houston that the Lumbee and the Cherokee inhabited the Buffalo Bayou/Galveston Bay area. I should know since I am a close descendant of the Cherokee Freedmen group.--Mphifer254 02:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
This is important for the Texas or some other more regional article. In fact, there is probably already a system in place for organizing such articles. Deatonjr 01:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nickname in infobox

We need to come to an agreement with what is considered the official nickname of the city and whether or not multiple nicknames are displayed in the infobox. I feel that only the official name of the city should be in the infobox and the other nickname should be in the body of the article. Let's all discuss and reach consensus here. Thank you, Postoak 21:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

from User Talk:Mphifer254
Before making substantive changes to an article, please seek a consensus. Also, remember that information added to an article must be verifiable. When adding new text, especially controversial new text, it is good form to include a footnote reference to a reliable source. This not only helps to avoid extensive discussion and bickering, it also improves the entire article in a general sense. --Evb-wiki 21:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Well I don't have time for that, all I know is that an article about a city should represent the people of the city.--Mphifer254 21:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to help guide Mphifer254, but apparently he/she is too busy to be bothered. --Evb-wiki 21:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Alright, fine. I'll be mature about this and discuss it, but I really don't see the need to. If you go to all the other articles for cities, most of them have multiple nicknames. Look at the article for New York City. Why should the Houston article be any different? If you insist that only one nickname be noted in the infobox, then all other city pages should go under the same change. Thank you.--Mphifer254 21:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Let the editors of those other pages reach a consensus. The consensus on this page has been to only include the "official" nickname. Thanks. --Evb-wiki 21:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
There are other cities that have only a single nickname, for example Los Angeles, California. Postoak 21:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm tired. It's quite obvious that this is very important to the both of you so I will agree to having one nickname in the infobox. Sleep easy,--Mphifer254 21:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I've never heard of "The Big Heart" or "HTX" as nicknames, but I'm not saying they don't exist. I guess "The Big Heart" would be a post Hurricane Katrina nickname? Would you happen to have some references, just interested. Thanks, Postoak 22:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Mphifer254 and Evb-wiki have been blocked for violating the Three Revert Rule. Please remember not to edit war, as it is disruptive. Thanks! --Ginkgo100talk 23:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The nickname in the box should be the official nickname, if the city has designated one. Also, Evb-wiki is a longtime contributor, he should be unblocked.Deatonjr 02:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nickname discussion

Gentlemen. Ladies. Peace has been restored. Everybody has been unblocked. This demonstrates the dire need for a discussion. Nickname?!?!? Should the info box only contain the official nickname?

  • Space City? - That is the official nickname. But not the most common (nor my favorite).
  • Bayou City? - This is the traditional popular nickname (and my personal fave).
    • To me this is the most common contemporary nameDeatonjr
  • H-Town? - Yes. This is the modern most popular and very common.
  • Clutch City? - Ummm. This is used, but it only really is related to the Rockets' 1994 & 1995 NBA championship seasons. It's a bit passé. (I think "choke city" is used too.)
    • I hadn't seen this used much since the Rockets won until the Astros made the World Series. It seems to be a favorite of sportswriters.
  • Magnolia City? - So they say. I've never heard it before. Are you serious? I don't get it. That could be just about any southern town.
  • HTX? - Never heard it. Could be true. Could be made up. I do get it, though.
  • Screwston? (or whatever) - Never heard it. Sounds like an outsiders put down.
  • The Big Heart? - You have got to be kidding me.
  • Oh yeah, we used to call it Who's-stoned . . . back in the day.

What am I missing? If we were to list more than the official nickname, where would we draw the line? Would any old name be okay?
—> (Of course, these questions must be asked for references in the text also.)
Does every nickname need to cite a reliable source? --Evb-wiki 04:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say "Bayou City" or "Space City". The city has been known as the "Bayou City" longer than "Space City", however "Space City" is the official nickname. I've never heard of the last three. Postoak 04:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, see...this is what happens when you have people who are unaware of the cultures of their own city. All the above nicknames were given by its own people. The only exception is The Big Heart. Screwston is not an outsider put down, but it's a combination of the city name with the original form of music associated with it: "Screw." I don't know how many times I have to say this for people to get it, but YES I DID concur to the idea that only the official nickname should be in the infobox; still, the fact that the other nicknames were constantly removed shows a half-a$$ed attempt to control the article. Nevermind that. Just know that all the nicknames do exist and are used repeatedly in the social circles of Houston that the editors evidently don't run in.--68.201.118.165 05:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Culture? Or sub-culture? That's the whole point. How widespread does the nickname have to be to be included? Either in the info box or the body? Do we use "clutch city" because sportscaster like to whip it out whe our teams are doing well? Maybe a dozen or so of us consistently used "who's stoned" for years. Seriously. The Heart City is (what) two years old and has absolutly no chance of sticking. There has to be a certain level of notability outside whatever clique or sub-culture established the usage. Or is the fact that the nickname exists enough? --Evb-wiki 05:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I get what you're saying but these names are indeed widespread and have been for many years. Now, as far as The Big Heart goes, I know several Katrina evacuees who love this city and are greatly appreciative of its efforts. These efforts are a stigma on the city worldwide. The fact that some Houstonians and evacuees don't get along is not widely known. You should be happy that our city is shown in such a good light for it to be the mega-city that it is. Houston has more potential and more character than any other world-class city. Being coined as the Big Heart is the start of the world realizing that.--68.201.118.165 05:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed on all counts. Houston is a diverse and wonderful city. For the purpose of this encyclopedic article, however, a concensus appears to be needed on the following issues: (1) Where do we draw the line? (2) Would any old name be okay? (3) Does every nickname need to cite a reliable source? --Evb-wiki 05:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
So true, and I would say no that any old name isn't okay. Then again, how can it be proved? I assure you though, that all nicknames are widespread.--68.201.118.165 05:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
They wouldn't be nicknames if they weren't.  :-) --Evb-wiki 06:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
My vote for the infobox - "Space City", Postoak 05:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I would vote for the "Bayou City" any day of the week. (And H-Town would be second.) But it appears a concensus has been reached on the issue re the nickname in the info box. --Evb-wiki 05:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
That is, assuming every writer here is a Houstonian which is certainly not the case. Deatonjr 05:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
All three editors that were originally involved in the debate are Houstonians. Note that this was before you came along. Also note that I wasn't talking about you. Thanks--68.201.118.165 05:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I say just put the official nickname in the infobox. It is too small to clutter with tons of other names. There is space in the culture article or elsewhere to explain all of the nicknames. Deatonjr 05:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sir/ma'am, that conclusion was reached hours ago. EVERYBODY agreed. The only one still stating their opinion on that particular matter is you.--68.201.118.165 05:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If there must be an article or sub-article about Houston nicknames, put it in the Cultures of Houston or other appropriate sub-article. For example, Screwston could be part of an article about Houston music, and Clutch City could be somewhere in the Sports section. Be bold. But don't clutter up the main Houston article with detailed explainations of every nickname that comes to mind. Deatonjr 05:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that's neither here nor there as consensus was reached that popular nicknames would be included in the article.--68.201.118.165 05:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
THIS NEED NOT BE STATED AFTERWARDS: "SPACE CITY" SHOULD STAND ALONE IN THE INFOBOX.--68.201.118.165 05:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Thank you for clearing things up there. I believe my responses are pertinent to the discussion.Deatonjr 06:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Codiene Capital of the World - This seems to be the best nickname so far, because Houston is the leading capital of Codiene production.

Nicknames in the text

In response to questions posed above: 1.Where do we draw the line?

  • We draw the line where there is a common consensus. Space City, H-Town, and Bayou City are commonly used and accepted nicknames. However, Houston also has many other nicknames. Unfortunately......

2.Would any old name be okay?

  • Not just any name is ok. One could list nicknames upon nicknames ad infinitum. That's why I suggest finding an appropriate Houston-related article to explain the lesser used names, because they cannot all be listed here without cluttering up the article. If the use of a nickname isn't widespread, there isn't a place for it on the Houston, Texas, article. In particular, time-related names like 'Heart City' or 'Clutch City' should be relegated to the article discussing the specific era or events surrounding the name. (Hurricate Katrina, and Houston Rockets, respectively) Such nicknames fade with time. Other names, like 'Screwston' are totally valid but originate and are used only within a specific sub-culture. They should be discussed on Houston hip hop or related articles.

3.Does every nickname need to cite a reliable source?

  • This is the main problem. So far, this talk page has been the best place to source and explain new nicknames. And it is helping.

Deatonjr 06:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I had so forgotten about "Hustletown." --Evb-wiki 07:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
On the suggestion to create an entire article about Nicknames of Houston, Texas, I think that this is a great idea. Apparently, there is plenty of information for each of these nicknames, and I also believe the information would only clutter up the Houston, Texas article. -- RedPoptarts 07:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Except that it is bound to fester and/or be hastily deleted. Slof 11:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

---

The continuation of this discussion has been moved to Nicknames of Houston in the text below. --Evb-wiki 02:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Local controversy about Southampton, Houston, Texas article

The removal of a blog link from the Southampton, Houston, Texas article is part of a local controversy over the article. See: http://www.examinernews.com/articles/2007/03/07/west_university/news/news05.txt WhisperToMe 04:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversy? I removed the blog entry based on WP:EL. I also removed the "rude remarks" mentioned in the article. Sheesh. Postoak 06:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I also just removed "Go to www.andersonbassfishing.com for all of your bass fishing needs." from the Baytown, Texas article. I wonder when that will make the local paper. Postoak 06:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Houston S.P.C.A: Houston is the home of the H.S.P.C.A and is proud to.

Nicknames...again. Why? Ask Evb-wiki...

March 7, 2007-- The nicknames "HTX," "Clutch City," "Screwston," "The Big Heart," "Magnolia City," and others became part of the Culture section...several days later, a certain user decides to delete the ones that they don't want on there, mind you, without discussing it. Forget that this action BROKE THE RULES, but it just doesn't make any sense. Fuck it. I played by the rules, discussed it. Consensus was reached. I'm changing it back.--Mphifer254 04:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! not this again. You know, I thought "Screwston" and "Big Heart was in the Culture section. Let me go check the history to see when it was deleted. Postoak 04:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Here we go, it was deleted by another user here [4]. Man, this person doesn't realize he started WWIII. Postoak 04:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
That was over two weeks ago (and only three days after the blowup). Now, suddenly, it's "oh my god, you keep changing it to spite me." What the Hell? --Evb-wiki 05:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't trip. Because you know that I was part of the original discussion, so when you saw I changed it back you should have left it there.--Mphifer254 05:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
That was a lot of edits ago. I didn't even recognize you until you freaked. --Evb-wiki 05:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, no one freaked. I just spoke up to object a jackass move. Now, I will apologize for accusing you of being the first one to revert the article.--Mphifer254 05:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, how should we resolve this? Do we want to keep the top 5 or 6 nicknames in the article? Or all of them? I think the article looks bad with so many of them there now. Should we vote on it? I could set up a poll or something. Postoak 06:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
But we already resolved it weeks ago. One user messed it up.--Mphifer254 06:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it was resolved, please see "Nicknames in the Text" above. I think we all got tired of discussing it. But someone is going to come along and remove a few or all of the nicknames again, I assure you. And then...let the rumble begin. Postoak 06:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I may just let it go. "Yeah, right," you say. I just thought the issue was resolved on the 7th. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mphifer254 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
I'll bring it up again in the nicknames section above. Now I hope you stick around and become a regular editor here, please see WikiProject Houston. Thanks, Postoak 07:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Nickname reversions

Are you serious? Really? Again?

It was decided that the nicknames in concern at that time would be included in the article. Do not tell me that it wasn't because I was the first to change it. Those names were added to the Culture section, left alone for days, and not discussed afterwards. Now all of a sudden you decide you don't want them there. The SECOND time you have taken it upon yourself to change something without others approval. You know I'm not lying, so leave them there. Thank you...--Mphifer254 04:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Noboby agreed that every nickname Houston has or could have should be listed. Read the talk page on this issue. --Evb-wiki 04:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
What are you saying?? The issue was originally between me and Postoak for several widespread nicknames. I added maybe four of them to the Culture section. Everybody was okay with it. So what is your beef? I added "HTX" and "H-Town," also. Why not those two? Or why not, fuckin "Clutch City"? Be fair. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mphifer254 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
I only deleted the two that were previously specifically discussed and yet still added by you today. I have not edited that section before. --Evb-wiki 04:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
But nobody ever agreed that those two couldn't be in the article, so you can't do that.--Mphifer254 04:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I can too. You are the one who should not add questionable nicknames without getting a concensus on their inclusion. --Evb-wiki 04:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I was the one who even added "HTX" in the first place. The other two that you keep removing are only questionable to you. To others they exist, and need to remain in the article. It was decided that "Space City" would be the only name in the infobox and the most popular nicknames would be put in the article. Ask Postoak. Those names are very widespread. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mphifer254 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
If you check [5] you will see that Moheroy edited the Culture section on March 10 [6] and it stayed that way until your edit today. --Evb-wiki 04:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Well you will have to excuse the fact that I don't give a damn. I'm sorry, but they were wrong and so were you. My point is that I have never deleted anything from this article, but then you have people like you who decide to delete things because YOU don't like it there. What gives you the right?--Mphifer254 05:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I do give a damn. That gives me the right. --Evb-wiki 05:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Gives you or Moheroy the right to revert without discussion? Don't think so. Yeah, because that sort of breaks the rules.--Mphifer254 05:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Is that the "I don't give a damn" rule? --Evb-wiki 05:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it's the rule that got both you and I blocked the last time.--Mphifer254 05:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Nicknames of Houston in the text

For the sake optimal completeness on this subject, please see this 2005/2006 discussion re nicknames in the archives. --Evb-wiki 13:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC) . . . AND Nicknames in the text above. --Evb-wiki 02:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This issue apparently has not been resolved. Should we vote on what names should remain, move them to another article or list, or leave all of them in the article? Thanks, Postoak 07:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
If a poll is had, I'll cast my vote. Otherwise, we can just follow the "no deletions allowed" rule. --Evb-wiki 07:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
See that's the problem. I assumed the issue was resolved between the three of us, but another user who was obviously unaware of this decided to take it upon theirself to change it. As I looked at the article just recently, I noticed some nicknames added that I had nothing to do with. I say that we should just leave it at is.--68.201.118.165 14:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Please help me to understand something...is User:68.201.118.165 and User:Mphifer254 one and the same? Postoak 15:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. Please excuse that. I forget to sign in sometimes--Mphifer254 17:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed article for Nicknames

I propose that we create a list of nicknames that is linked from the Culture section of the article. ie

See also: List of Houston nicknames

.

Here we can put any/all nicknames and give a brief description of each and a reference of some type. Maybe format a table with this information. We could create this off the wikiproject namespace and complete it first so that it won't get deleted right off. Let me know what you think. Postoak 01:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought it best to move this to the bottom of the page, if we are going to continue to discuss it. Here are a couple of relevant comments copied from the previous discussion above:
On the suggestion to create an entire article about Nicknames of Houston, Texas, I think that this is a great idea. Apparently, there is plenty of information for each of these nicknames, and I also believe the information would only clutter up the Houston, Texas article. -- RedPoptarts 07:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Except that it is bound to fester and/or be hastily deleted. Slof 11:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I imaging it might (1) grow to a dozen nicknames or so and stop, making it very small, or (2) continue growing with all kinds of nonsense, and be useless. Perhaps we can require a quality explanation of the context and scope of usage for each nickname, so its not just a list. Otherwise, it's not going to be very practicable. --Evb-wiki 02:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think each nickname in the list should have a quality explantion and a web citation/ref with an example of where/how it is used. The dozen nicknames would be a small article, but it would be complete and not a stub. Any new entries that does not follow the defined format gets zapped or moved to the talk page until it is complete. Postoak 02:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
If we can get a good paragraph or two on each, an article containing a dozen nicknames wouldn't really be that small. But the battle to maintain it may be daunting.--Evb-wiki 02:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, but every article is a battle here. :) I've been on vandalism patrol the last couple of nights and it isn't pretty. Postoak 02:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
You're right, of course. Maybe I'm being pecimistic. I don't like the idea of a simple listing of nicknames, but an encyclopedic article on the nicknames might work. --Evb-wiki 03:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Something like this? Nicknames of Houston, Texas draft. Postoak 03:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks kinda like a list. I just wonder how many of those will remain without reliable sources. --Evb-wiki 03:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
We can remove the ones that are questionable or cannot find a source. Postoak 03:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Several people might disagree with me, but I highly doubt that any other popular nickname for the city exists; therefore, it could just stay as is. I'm gonna be honest. I didn't find a whole bunch of links in which Houston was referred to as the Big Heart, but I had heard it a lot, so that one doesn't have to be in the article. Now, Screwston, I can find pages and pages of different websites that use that name. So that one is pretty crucial;--Mphifer254 16:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Moreover, only names that can turn up a lot of sources should be used.--Mphifer254 16:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Please feel free to update Nicknames of Houston, Texas draft. I can move it to an actual article page once most of it is complete. It someone decides the article isn't notable, I will point them to this talk page! Postoak 17:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think some need to be weeded out, including Who's-stoned, which I swear was used a lot (at least out in the Cy-Fair area) maybe 25 years ago. (Isn't that good enough?) I'm very doubtful I'll find any references. As to Screwston, I get a lot of hits, but they all seem to refer to compilation and/or tribute CDs of various rap artists. And H-Town actually doesn't get many relevant hits, but is very common and appears to be solidly entrenched in the community (at least with some of the circle in which I run). Baghdad on the Bayou has to have more to it than simply a city with lots of bayous, and lots of hits are referring to New Orleans recently (because of the devastation that remains). Finally, maybe the syrup- and codeine-related names could be combined. --Evb-wiki 17:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The Nicknames of Houston, Texas article was "moved to production". :) Postoak 06:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

schools in intro

I removed the mention of Rice University and U Houston from the intro and was reverted. Here's my reasoning:

No other major city articles mention schools in lead. You have to go down to Tuscon (the 32nd largest city) to find a mention of a school in the intro, and even then only to note a local landmark. You have to go to Sacramento (the 37th largest) to find a mention of a school in the intro for its own sake. Even enormous college towns like Philadelphia and Boston don't mention schools in their intros despite the fact that both have schools that are IVY LEAGUE. Introductions for city articles shouldn't serve as advertisements for schools.--Loodog 12:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the "no one else does it" rationale is convincing, but I vote to remove the reference as well, since educational institutions are covered extensively elsewhere in the article. Spin2cool 17:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The lead section (and article composition as well) of the other city articles is irrelevant. Each city and city article is unique. Perhaps you have overlooked San Diego and El Paso? They are also "major" cities, or are "major" cities only found on the east coast? Postoak 18:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I was comparing by population. Out of the top 50, only Tucson and Sacramento mention schools in intro. Houston is a large enough city with diverse and rich enough qualities to not need to mention two of its schools in its intro. As for the "no one else does it" rationale, we need to use precedents in wikipedia, if for no other reason than to maintain some sense of consistency.--Loodog 22:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so. Please review List of United States cities by population. Then review the leads for San Diego, El Paso, Albuquerque and Oakland. "we need to use precedents in wikipedia"...is this a policy or guideline? If so, let the other city articles use Houston as an example. The Houston article was the latest city article (I believe) to reach FA. Postoak 22:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I missed a few. The point stands: that larger cities don't do this. As for precedents, we all agreed to work with them when we threw out the "1 of 11 world cities" line from the intro in the discussion above. I acknowledge that no two cities are geographically, sociologically, and economically the same, but their distinct attributes can presented in a fairly standard way so that each article's writing isn't just what the its writers felt like including.--Loodog 23:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Please direct me to the policy or guideline that states that an instituion of higher learning should not be mentioned in the lead if the population is greater than X. Postoak 01:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Direct me to the policy or guideline that says schools should be in the lead.--Loodog 03:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think we were first discussing the point you were trying to prove, right? Which you obviously cannot. Postoak 03:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Look, this isn't going anywhere productive. I've said my piece. I'll step back now and see the consenus.--Loodog 04:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The issue for me is not rules or policies; its quality. And I guess either way works. Although, for paragraph balance and aesthetic form, I'd leave it as is. On the other hand, if you mention UH/Rice, what about TSU, St. Ed's, HBU, etc.? Of, course, it's just an introduction to the article. Oh, and just because other articles do it one way, doesn't require conformity. My 2¢. Regards. --Evb-wiki 23:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Another good point. There are two schools mentioned. Out of seventeen(ish). Why only two? Why not another two? etc...--Loodog 01:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Poll on schools in intro

VOTE (see discussion above): Schools in intro:

Keep
  • I vote to keep. It's just the intro, and Rice/UH were mentioned there when the article made FA status. No reason to change it now. I'm more concerned with the substantive sections. Besides, what make these two schools unique are the specific prestige factor & stats mentioned in the sentence. --Evb-wiki 20:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep it. Consistency with other cities is not an official policy or guideline. The two schools conduct research for NASA and the Texas Medical Center so they complement the paragraph as a whole. Also, it was recommended that Rice be added during final FA review by the reviewer. Search for Rice University here User talk:Postoak/archive 3. Postoak 22:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The schools, especially Rice, are in the lead because of how the modern city of Houston was formed with its various downtowns around different points, and the contribution of medical research to Houston's development, the medical research tied directly to the presence of Rice and University of Houston. This was discussed and agreed upon in the FAC for this article.
    • Strangely this is not about Oil, which Boston also doesn't have mentioned in its lead, or about the American Revolution which Boston does have in its lead? I think the problem is with the lead section to the Boston article, and conforming this article to a problematic FA should be ceased immediately. I will read the Boston article and see if there are more issues besides its lead section, and whether or not it requires FAR. In the meantime, until the American Revolution plays a role in the founding of Sacramento, let's not paint all apples and oranges yellow so they conform to bananas.
    • Should you require conformity of lead sections for all 50 major cities in the US, then please write up a proposal stating exactly what should be in the sections and why and post it for the community to consider. But, while there are things mentioned in the Boston article, but not covered here and vice versa, and in all such pairs of major cities, please don't come in here and say one thing has to be removed from the lead of this article, because it's not in the Boston article, but fail to require the same thing of the Boston article.KP Botany 00:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think the nomination to change this was made in good faith so I am sorry to see it has generated some acrimony. Never-the-less, I think that conformity should only go so far and that each city article should mention in the lead what is important and relevant to that city. KP makes some compelling arguments why those two schools fit the bill here to be in the entry. I don't see any other schools rising to the that level. Johntex\talk 00:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I apologize, as I'm not trying to be acrymonyous, just quick. The biggest argument was that there are things in this article that aren't in the leads to other big city articles, yet I run through half a dozen American big cities, and none of them have all the same thing in their leads, so why is Houston singled out to be like Boston? It's very difficult to follow what is going on here, but I think that if it really is important that all American big cities have similar leads, the plan for these leads should be thought out, and this proposed to the community, rather than picking one city, Houston, and stating that it should be like another, Boston. It's frustrating on Wikipedia spending time with demands for changes that seem not well thought out, after a lot of hard work has been put into an article. I would simply like this proposal to be considered at greater depth, before being proposed, before polls being taken.KP Botany 16:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Hi KP, I'm sorry - I didn't mean for you to take my comment as being directed against you. I just meant that the whole issue (especially the disucssion in the section above) seemed a bit acrymonyous. Like you, I want to encourage Loodog to stick with it and to consider the matter further. Johntex\talk 17:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment I have something to apologize for, though, as my answer was a bit short, and I know other users think I sound hostile when I ask questions (Wikipedia is a place where no one can ask why!)--I work in academia where hard hitting questions are expected and even desired. Still, it does seem that this is an issue to be decided by the broader Wikipedia community about what should be in the lead sections of city articles, if there should be conformity, and if so, what should that standardization be. This article took a lot of work to get up to FA status, and there were a lot of criticisms and a lot of comments. But some folks had done some hard work even before it was sent to FAC, and I would like to consider the value of future improvements seriously. As to what should be in the lead, if it is about all the other city articles, rather than just about this one, I would like something to be decided that gives others guidelines rather than pick apart one article after another, piece by piece, based on someone's not particularly well-articulate ideas (not meant to be insulting, but it's hard to understand the reasoning when the examples given don't follow the reasoning), without well-supported examples, of what a city article should be. Standardization can be a good thing, but it isn't accomplished by a single person piecemeal putting their stamp on a few articles, but rather by the insights of a lot of folks interested in diverse city articles making a decision about them en masse. If they should be standardized, let's do it right, and assume many in the community can contribute to how they are standardized, then present it to all the city articles. KP Botany 22:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Discard
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Houston/Archive_5&oldid=1133413320"