Talk:Houston/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wondering how to edit this City Entry?
WikiProject U.S. states might help.

Size

It says on this page that Houston is the third largest city in the US, but it says on Chicago that Chicago is the third largest city in the US. Does anybody actually know? ;) -- Steinsky 19 July 2003


Houston is 4th largest and Chicago is 3rd largest, I believe. - Whisper


This is another case of wishful thinking. Chicago is 3rd followed by Houston, which is 4th. Chicago still has a somewhat commanding lead over Houston, but the gap is closing so fast that Houston will likely be 3rd within a decade. Chicago just can't seem to grow while Houston & LA continue to boom.

Chicago is 3rd ......... many people in Chicago are moving to the suburbs, so the city is shrinking and there is no more room to build, whereas Houston can continue to grow out, so Houston will probably been 3rd largest by 2010. The city of Houston is 4th largest, but when you consider metropolitan areas, Houston is 7th or 8th ( i can't remember)..... oh yeah, some one said that Chicago just can't seem to grow like Houston, but the Chicago metro area is growing faster than the Houston metro area ..... My prediction is that Houston will be number 3 for a few years, but then Phoenix will be come 3, Houston 4 and Chicago 5.

This article says ...."Houston is...the second-largest economic area of the Gulf Coast region." Like to know which is the first. The article doesn't say ports, which I'm thinking where this statement came from and while it might be true at one time (still don't think so because Houston port is tops in foreign tonnage) with New Orleans, it certainly isn't now. And if you're talking pure economic development, you need an explainer on what "economic area" is...Think Houston, as the nation's fourth -largest city (according to 2000 Census) is first in the Gulf Coast area as an economic area.

Translation

Since I don't know any French, the French version of this page is bare bones. Someone please flesh out that article.

I would also like to see a Japanese version of this page. Sigh, I only know English and some Spanish. WhisperToMe 05:51, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)


My father is friends with a couple. The man is Polish and the woman is Japanese. I am going to give them credit for translating several sentences into what is now the Japanese and Polish versions of this article. WhisperToMe 01:26, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Religion/Ethnicity

I cut this from the article, I don't think it's relevant but if you really disagree put it back in:

"The influx of Hispanics is the chief reason that Houston is has a large Roman Catholic population. Protestantism is also widely practiced in the city. The Beth Yushuron Temple and about two others in the area are seen as a meeting place for the city's Hebrew population. The influx of Asians is increasing the amount of Muslims in the city."

Jgalea84 00:59, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

There is a very large Nigerian population in Houston. It is estimated at 80,000 to 100,000 ex patriates--which is much larger than the city's South African population. Where does it rank in the United States?

dinobrya

Lists of radio and TV stations

Are the lists of radio and TV stations really necessary?? -chayves4u

Yes, Chayves. Its done in Toronto, and so, it is done here. WhisperToMe 22:16, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I see.. cuz what Toronto does, Houston does. Personally, I think it wastes space and makes the page seem more cluttered. Could we maybe move it to it's own page, and put a link under the "Media" section? Just a suggestion.. I don't want to do anything where people would get pissed off.. -chayves4u

I think that would be a good idea; it was done for Atlanta if I'm not mistaken. - Hephaestos|§ 23:21, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You see, Toronto is superior to Houston, obviously. And what goes for Toronto goes for us. Not being serious. Flying Hamster 04:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

List of hospitals

List of hospitals in Texas

Fastest growing city

You say that Houston is the "Fastest Growing City In America" but you never say why it is. Or why it is starting to increase now. I would like to know WHY!?

People have said this since the early 1980s. Houston is no longer the fastest growing city, which is now probably Las Vegas or Phoenix.

--According to the Information Please Almanac (which Time magazine uses for its own almanac), Houston was not even among the top ten fastest growing cities OR Metropolitan areas for the U.S. between 1990 and 2000. The statements should simply be removed. --Jleon 18:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I have often heard that Houston was the fastest growing major city of the 20th century in America. Of course, LA gained a lot more total people, but I'm guessing LA was a lot larger in 1900 than Houston, so Houston might be faster on a percentage basis. As far as why: growth really started to take off in the 1950s-60s when air conditioning became widespread, then accelerated with the oil boom of the 70s, and since then immigration from Latin America - esp. Mexico - has been a big part of it. Annexation helped too: Houston continuously annexes areas to increase it's population and tax base. Few other cities/states in the country have the same level of annexation powers.

U.S. Census designation for the Houston Metropolitan Area

The U.S. Census designation for the Houston Metropolitan Area is no longer
Houston—Galveston—Brazoria. The new designation is now Houston—Sugar Land—Baytown as of 2003. -- UH Collegian

Error, correct or don't mention at all

Transportation section: "In 2004 was the opening of the Fort Bend Parkway (Texas Highway 122) connecting Beltway 8 to Highway 6 near Sugar Land in Fort Bend County to alleviate traffic congestion on neighboring roads. It too requires an EZ Tag, but there is also a machine for cash as the fee is only $1.00."

Cannot both require an EZ Tag and accept cash, but I don't know which is correct - anyone?

Fort Bend Parkway only accepts EZ tag. I will most likely go fix that soon. -- UH Collegian
It has been fixed. -- UH Collegian
It just occured to me that the Fort Bend Parkway (Texas Highway 122) accepts BOTH EZ Tag and cash. Their toll booths however are not manned. This information has been updated again to reflect past errors. UH Collegian

Fattest city

User:4.226.213.140 removed the paragraph about Houston being the US's fattest city, saying "Removed the fattest city status and regarding how many awards we received. This is NOT something to brag about!" It not being something to brag about doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the article; things that are negative about the subject of an article are still appropriate content. AJR 10:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


"Five Hours to the North"

Re:"Houstonians often consider themselves more "down to earth" than their neighbors five hours to the north."
I realise I'm being really picky here, but technically, Dallas is not five hours north of Houston. An hour is a unit of time, not distance. It is colloquial in Houston and in other places where the automobile is a dominant part of life to refer to distance in driving time, but in the context of an encyclopedia, it is, to my thinking, inappropriate. After all, if one flies to Dallas (which many people do), it's only an hour away. In this case, I think leaving out "five hours" is most appropriate. Thank you and I promise I'll get a life now. Rockhopper10r 04:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image size

"4.226.213.126 (Made picture to 290px again and stop reverting my edits unless you discuss on talk page to why you should get your way. The 290px works fine on an 800x600 pixel monitor configuration)"

Not everyone has that monitor size. Enough said. WhisperToMe 06:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Major revision and formating of article

This was the most cluttered article I have ever encountered and it was getting worse! I was then motivated by a comment made by Chayves4u above in early 2004 and spent a few hours with 20 edits or so revising, adding information, reformating, and moving the most of the "lists of..." to its own article outside of the main article. As a result, the Houston, Texas article is now uncluttered! I dedicate this major revision to Chayves4u, thank you for motivating me. I agree with him that the list of radio and television stations and other lists of that nature are a waste of space and they clutter up the article.

The new revision did not lose anything, all of the "lists of..." are now linked under their specific section in the main article. For example, the List of Television Station is now linked under the "Media and entertainment" section of the article. I hope you guys like what I did because I spent a lot of time on it and I think it is for the best.


UH Collegian 13:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anniversaries

Re:UH's 25th anniversary: That in and of itself really isn't an historical event. The fiftieth anniversary ties in with the founding of the UH System, so that works.Rockhopper10r 19:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New Map Request

Can someone please replace the image for the area coverage of the Houston Metropolitan Area. I do not know how to do it nor do I know where to get the image. As of 2003, the metropolitan area covers 10 counties instead of the map showing only eight counties. Any help is appreciated! UH Collegian 08:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes

Firstly, I just reverted to WhisperToMe's last revision. An anon changed virtually all of my copyediting with no explanation, so I rolled it back. Just a few issues I'd like to bring up with WhisperToMe's edits. First, the stuff about ChinaTown -- you added back in the neighborhood section, but it's really duplicative. In the "People and Culture" section we say: Houston has two Chinatowns, as well as the third largest Vietnamese American population in the United States (and an area near Midtown known as "Little Saigon"). However, recent redevelopment of Midtown has increased property values and property taxes thus forcing many Vietnamese-Americans out of their current neighborhood into other areas Then later we basically say the same thing in the Midtown and Downtown sections. How would you prefer to resolve the duplications?

Second, I don't see any need for listing the two airports' designations in this article. They're factually correct but they interrupt the flow of reading. If there was no article on the separate airports I'd support leaving them in, but anybody curious enough about the airport designations can click on the airports' articles to see them.

Third, I don't mean to be contrary, but everybody in my family, and pretty much everybody except for recent transplants to Houston that I know, calls IAH Intercontinental. The only people I'VE ever heard call it "Bush" are recent transplants to the city. I really would like to see if we can get a consensus on this, because my impression is that the most common reference is Intercontinental.

Fourth, you added back in duplicative information on the arts. The article currently has these two paragraphs back to back:

Houston has world-class visual and performing arts organizations, along with a dose of homegrown folk art such as Art Cars. Houston has the Houston Grand Opera, the Houston Symphony Orchestra, the Houston Ballet, and the Alley Theatre and is second only to New York in terms of seat concentration. Houston is one of only five cities in the country with these year-round visual and performing arts available, and is widely recognized as the nation's third most important city for contemporary visual art.

The city offers a wide range of business, entertainment and cultural opportunities. Houston also offers the Houston Grand Opera, the Houston Symphony Orchestra, the Houston Ballet, the Alley Theatre and is second only to New York in terms of seat concentration. Houston is one of only five cities in the country with these year-round visual and performing arts available and is widely recognized as the nation's third most important city for contemporary visual art. Less than an hour from the Gulf of Mexico, Houston is close to sunny beaches, one of the nation's largest concentrations of pleasure boats, and tourist attractions such as the Kemah Boardwalk and Galveston Island.

How would you prefer to fix the duplications? Thanks much. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:42, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate materials, as you would call it, were put on this page on purpose in the first place, I believe. For instance, the materials on lead paragraphs appear again later in the article under whatever section they correspond to. Therefore, they are not duplicates. If you would go look on other cities, you would find that the lead contains about 3 or 4 general paragraphs maximum. Information on the lead would later appear again in the article sections and would be in detailed. Your revision on the lead paragraphs were too long and detailed for it to be in the lead section. Your so called "copyediting" was nothing but an excuse to remove materials that I find to be racially selective as well.
I have spent 4 hours this morning copyediting and added information as well. Because of your revert, the information I put into the entertainment section was lost!!! You stated on the edit sypnosis that I virtually undid all of your copyediting. From what I saw, your copyediting was not really copyediting since you have removed selected materials or negative sentences from almost all sections. If you were to look at my edit histories, you would find that the sentences you reworded and added were put back through each of my edit histories. The only thing that was not put back were the lead paragraphs of the article. The lead paragraphs of the article are meant to be general, not detailed and long. Whatever is in the lead will appear again in later sections- this is what you called duplicates. However, if you were to look at other articles, you would find duplicates as well. Again, your copyedits did not dissappear except for the lead section. I have spent four hours this morning putting back what was lost through the process and added in all of your sentence rewording and sentences that you merged from multiple sentences. Again, you did not lose any of your copyediting except for the lead part. I also don't appreciate that you reverted 4 hours of my copyediting and some of the information I added. I suggest you spend an hour and study the multiple of my edit histories and hope that you will come to a conclusion that none of your copyedits were lost except for the lead part. If you have time, go to other articles like Chicago or Los Angeles, you will find that they don't start of the lead with "Los Angeles, California is a ..." or "Chicago, Illinois is a ...". What I am trying to say is, it doesn't look professional if you start of the lead for the Houston article, "Houston, Texas is a ..." What I am trying to say is that all other articles start of with "Los Angeles is a ..." or "Chicago is a ...". They don't include the states since the location of the states would be mentioned later. For example, "Los Angeles is a city located in the state of California within the United States." Not, "Los Angeles, California is a city in the United States." While I agree with your copyediting (with the exception of your removal of selective topics that was covered and the lead paragpraphs). My request is that I want you to spend an hour studying my edit histories and you will find that I did not undo your copyediting like you accused me of. I like how you reworded and merged sentences, but I do not like the missing materials, unduplication, and the lead paragraphs. You also reverted the change made by User 70.XX whatever as well, which was not me. -- 63.XX.XX.XXX
I'm sorry you were offended, we're all here to work together. But I should mention that no one has ownership over Wikipedia articles (not even me ;)), and if you can't deal with having articles you've contributed to edited mercilessly then you may find it difficult to enjoy yourself here. Also, if you're going to be making large changes to articles, you should consider registering for an account (see Register for an account before making large changes to existing articles. Respectfully, you did much more than only change the lead.
Here's a for instance: Your phrasing: Houston is one of the newest and fastest growing major cities in the United States. In 1900, the population in Houston was approximately 45,000 and it was the 85th largest city in the United States. As of the U.S. Census 2000, the city had a total population of 1,953,631, but a July 1, 2004, U.S. Census estimate placed the city's population at 2,012,626.
Mine: Houston is one of the newest and fastest growing major cities in the United States — in 1900, Houston's population of about 45,000 made it the 85th largest city in the United States. As of the 2000 U.S. Census, Houston had a total population of more than 1.9 million (however, a July 1, 2004, U.S. Census estimate placed the city's population at just over 2 million). Beyond the wording changes, it's not proper style to write out whole numbers more than a million dollars. Rather, you use "1.9 million" or such as that.
Also, under what you have re-phrased "Society":
Your language: The Hispanic population in Houston is increasing as more and more people from Latin countries try to find work in Houston. Hispanics make up a significant amount of the population. Houston has the third largest Hispanic population in the United States.
My language: The Hispanic population in Houston is increasing as more and more people from Latin countries try to find work in Houston — Houston now has the third largest Hispanic population in the United States. It's much better to meld thoughts together where possible instead of creating choppy sentences. There are other instances of edits of mine that you reverted wholesale to language that is not as well written.
You also added information that is duplicative: Another factor mentioned regarding Houston being the "fattest" city was that it has the most restaurants and Houstonians tend to eat out more than anyone else in other American cities. (This information is already contained in the section on Dallas, where it is mentioned Houstonians eat out more often than residents of any other city in the United States,.
You also removed information that was true, such as: Some also complain that Dallas gets more national attention than Houston, even though Houston is considerably larger in population. and (locals call them feeders).
I'm going to go back and re-copyedit the article, but I'll leave the top alone. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:09, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I've gone through a very small portion of the top of the article and done some copyedits, and have tried to explain my reasoning in the edit summaries so that you can see what sorts of changes I've made and why. I didn't want to do too much of it at once so as to be overwhelming. I'll do similar copyediting throughout the article at a later time (gotta go eat!) · Katefan0(scribble) 22:37, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

KateFan, the reference to Chinatown MUST be in BOTH culture AND neighborhoods. It MUST be in neighborhoods because neighborhoods lists all of the neighborhoods in the city, and culture because it is a reference to the Asian population in Houston. Hmm... maybe we could re-word the first one to say "Many of Houston's Asians are located in the two Chinatowns". WhisperToMe 23:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean; yes, that might be the best. Leave the information vague up top and get into it in more detail later. Although, I tend to feel like the neighborhood information is a little excessive -- the article overall is a bit lengthy. How would you feel about making a fork of something like Neighborhoods of Houston, Texas? · Katefan0(scribble) 03:27, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
That can happen once the section gets lengthy :) WhisperToMe 06:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
The article itself is already lengthy enough to start examining where it can be forked, though, and that seems to me like the most logical portion to shift. It's more than enough to be a non-stub, don't you think? Plus, then it can be expanded even, with photographs of each area, and we don't have to worry about being duplicative with the rest of the text. · Katefan0(scribble) 14:38, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

The Arts in Houston

Re quote: Houston "is second only to New York City in terms of arts-related seat concentration. Houston is one of only five cities in the country with visual and performing arts available year-round and is widely recognized as the nation's third most important city for contemporary visual art."

--These two sentences are very odd, can anyone provide solid info for sources on this stuff? 1) How do you define "arts-related seat concentration"? 2) How can only five cities in the U.S. have visual & performing arts "year round"? and 3) If its true about being third in contemporary visual arts (which I seriously doubt) then what are the other two? If no one can provide sensible answers to these questions, I believe it would only be right to rework or delete these statements. --Jleon 16:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't add those statements, but I don't doubt them on their face (still, they must be sourceable). Houston is enormously rich in the performing and visual arts. Have you ever been to Houston? I realize folks who haven't may find that incredible, but I didn't, as a native. Anyway, though I didn't add the information, I think I may have found where it originated from: Houston also offers the Houston Grand Opera, The Houston Symphony Orchestra, the Houston Ballet, The Alley Theatre and is second only to New York in terms of seat concentration. Houston is one of only five cities in the country with these year-round visual and performing arts available. [1] (Looks like something produced by a real estate brokerage.) I'll see if I can find something a little more unbiased. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:24, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Now we're getting a little closer. The Houston Theater District is ranked second, only behind New York City, for the number of theater seats in a concentrated downtown area, and Houston is one of only five cities in the United States with permanent professional resident companies in all of the major performing arts disciplines of opera, ballet, music, and theater. [2] (Run by the Greater Houston Convention and Visitors Bureau). I'll make the language a little more exact. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:29, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

A couple moves

Hey y'all, I moved the demographic section down to the bottom of the article. It's way too numbers-heavy to be in the middle of the article; nobody's going to read through all of that to see the next sections, so I put it down toward the bottom. I also moved the MSA template for the same reason -- it interrupts the flow of the article's text, and it's for this reason that most templates are placed at the bottom of an article. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:43, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Infobox wars

Hottentot, can you explain please why you feel it's so important to have the flag and seal be 110/120px instead of 150px? 150px, according to UHCollegian who's been working with the box, was what the article used prior to any of our involvement. I'd just like to understand your reasoning, rather than seeing an edit war. Thanks · Katefan0(scribble) 18:41, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

The flag and seal look ridiculously large. Take a look at any country infobox, and city infobox, like Los Angeles, for example. --Hottentot
Well, standardization is pretty much the norm on Wikipedia, in terms of general practices. And when it comes to a question on style, I think the standard practice is to consult what the corresponding wikiproject does Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. It appears that WikiProject Cities' standard pixel sizes conform to Hottentot's, which is probably what ours should do too. Sorry, UHC. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:36, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Currently, to my knowledge, there are two city templates going around Wikipedia. They are Template:Infobox City and Template:US City infobox for ease of use. Both of those templates vary in sizes and fields. I felt that both of those were not sufficient for the use of this article, therefore I customized it by adding two fields. The new template now follows the style of Infobox City with the exception of two additional fields and the image sizes being the same of the old template that was added by WhisperToMe a long time ago, according to edit history. That old template was later customized by adding in fields and a picture of Houston within the template, all done by me. Some cities use either templates, customized their own from existing templates, 100% customized, or none at all. Just some information, I am not trying to justify anything or propose anything. I don't think there is a standard since there are at least two templates going around and they are of different sizes and made by different people. San Antonio uses US City infobox while Austin uses Infobox City. The current template for Houston is a customized version of Infobox City. UH Collegian 20:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Who cares about all that? We had a compromise and you broke it. --Hottentot
Please stop reverting. The compromise was that I wouldn't move down the infobox as long as you kept the flag and seal the right size. You have continued to revert my edits since then. --Hottentot

Suburbs

There seems to be some disagreement about how much information there should be about suburban communities. I think I should point out that the title of this article is "Houston, Texas". While Sugar Land, Pearland and all the others are important to the metropolitan area, they are not part of Houston. They are treated in sufficient detail in their own articles so that a cursory mention here should be adequate. Thank you. Rockhopper10r 18:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I hate to beat a dead horse, but as I said up top, I think the district/community/suburb/neighborhood/ward information in the article is entirely too large. The article as it is is too large in general and needs some trimming anyway. The article itself is about 6900 words long; the district/neighborhood/ward/etc. information is about 2400 words. That's almost 35% of the entire article devoted to way too much information about individual neighborhoods, suburbs etc. With all respect to WhisperToMe, and in keeping with Wikipedia:Be bold, I am forking it into Neighborhoods and Suburbs of Houston, Texas. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:52, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. In fact, we may want to think about making it two articles, one for neighbourhoods and one for suburbs. Just a thought.Rockhopper10r 03:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't know that it's strictly necessary, but I wouldn't object if you somebody :) wanted to do it. · Katefan0(scribble) 04:12, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
It's fine to move the article in detail somewhere. How can we make an abbreviated section for the neighborhood section? WhisperToMe 06:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I think we can probably just take the highlights from the forked article and put it into some sort of paragraph form. A brief explanation about the history of the ward system, a quick-hit on some of Houston's better-known neighborhoods, something like that. I can do it but I won't be able to probably until tomorrow. May have time later today but work will be busy so I'm not sure. · Katefan0(scribble) 13:27, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I have summarized the "Districts and communities" section and hope it's not too long. I also added a new section called "Skyline". The Skyline section has four pictures and the summarized Districts and communities section has three pictures. Hope you guys like what I did. Oh yeah, I also started a summary for the History section as well. It is far from complete though. If you guys have extra time with nothing to do, any help is appreciated for the History section. UH Collegian 08:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I think it is a bit too long. It seems to invite people to fill in the blanks of neighborhoods that are not listed and then we'd end up right back where we were. Perhaps, just a list of neighborhoods that have articles about them would work better. For example:
Notable neighborhoods in Houston include:
Downtown
Midtown
And so on. Rockhopper10r 15:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I tend to agree, although I'd also like to mention that the "neighborhoods" mentioned doesn't really strictly treat the neighborhoods. The information UHC added is almost all about the kinds of buildings in these neighborhoods; maybe it would be better to create a Architecture in Houston article or something like that. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:30, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
It's done. I kept the first few paragraphs for context. I removed the photograph of the Skyline District because it gave the section too many pictures and the Downtown skyline is already depicted elsewhere. Also, I've kept to the Houston neighborhood that have articles, with the exceptions of Houston Heights and Meyerland, both of which will probably have articles written about them at some point. If anyone wants to add a name of a neighborhood not listed, that's fine.Rockhopper10r 22:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Forks

Moved a couple of the lists off into their own articles today. Also, I feel like we have way too many photos in the article in general, and too many of buildings in particular. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:22, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Districts and communities section of article

I will make a new template of the "Districts and communities of Houston" so we won't end up having more lists. It will include districts, areas, master-planned communities, and other "notable" neighborhoods within the city limits and extraterritorial jurisdiction of Houston. Again, the template will include all blue links of areas in Houston city limits and ETJ. I will not include anything that is not Houston since we already have a Template:Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown MSA, which I made as well. Someone might ask this, "Will The Woodlands be included in the template?" The answer is yes, because The Woodlands is not a city (for people who are not already aware), it is a "master-planned community" and is located in the city of Houston's ETJ. Any comments and suggestions? Feel free to inquire below. UH Collegian 22:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I would question the inclusion of The Woodlands. It may be part of Houston's ETJ, but it is not in its corporate limits. Culturally, it is its own (albeit unincorporated) entity. Its residents are not citizens of Houston. In short, it is not part of Houston.Rockhopper10r 00:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
This may be different in 2011 when it will be annexed... but right now Woodlands is not considered to be a neighborhood of Houston. WhisperToMe 02:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Great job on the template UHC! Thanks for leaving The Woodlands off. Of course the template needs to go on every neighborhood article. I'll see what I can do. Thanks again!Rockhopper10r 05:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I'll make an exception, I will include red links as well in hope that people will take the initiative and start the article. UH Collegian 23:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
On second thought, I don't really like having a laundry list of communities as part of the main article. I'm not sure I particularly like the idea of another template, either. Unless maybe it's linked off of Neighborhoods and Suburbs of Houston, Texas. But I don't think we need yet another template on the main page. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:43, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

"see also"

I specifically created a "see also" section as I think that's the proper style for this type of information. User:Urban909 keeps changing it back. I've left a message on his or her talk page, apparently to no effect. Just wanted to mention here that I've reverted the changes, again. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:37, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

the whole concept of wikipedia is to make information as easy to find as possible. if you would notice, most pages, especially concerning cities of this size, have relevant links in their subcategories to other relevant information... urban909

Well, often what one person thinks looks better is entirely different than another... but on this score, I looked again through the manual of style for Wikipedia (WP:Style), and it turns out that the preferred way is opposite what I thought -- spreading through the article is what it suggests. Thanks for coming to the talk page to discuss! · Katefan0(scribble) 03:41, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Rice vs. UH

I purposefully moved Rice up first on the list of universities in Houston. Why? Because it's the best university in Houston, and really arguably in the state, with all due respect to UH, which is a fine institution. It is not diminished by being listed second. UH Collegian, you switched the order and in your edit summary said that UH is "more important" because it's public and Rice is private. I have to disagree with you -- public vs. private doesn't make something inherently more or less important than another school. I know you're attached to UH -- as I've said before, I have several family members who graduated from UH and I also have some affection for it -- but I'd like to ask you to reconsider your text move. · Katefan0(scribble) 14:54, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, Rice is more prominent than UH. I can't say whether or not it is better per se, but Rice is more prominent and desireable than UH. UH is seen as a lower-end university. WhisperToMe 16:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Just my two cents: Both are fine institutions and I have friends who are alumni/faculty/staff of both. As a transplant to Houston, my first thought would be to mention Rice first, because it is a more prestigious and better-known university outside the local area. In Massachusetts, for example, I had heard of Rice, but not, to my recollection, UH. To use an objective measure, Rice is older and it also comes before "University of Houston" alphabetically, so it would be the logical choice to come first.Rockhopper10r 17:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)



I wrote the entire section of "Education and scientific research" for the Houston article and also, recently, the Texas article as well. All contents and paragraph locations have been intact for about two months. No one has complained about it until now. If I didn't write the section, it would be nothing but a list right now. Maybe I should just go and erase it the next time someone else complains or give me a hard time about it. I have the liberty to do this since I wrote the entire section. You moved the paragraphs that I wrote, not vice versa, so I moved it back. You made it sound like you're the victim and that I vandalized your swapped of my paragraphs, which I did not. Lately, you have been questioning and forcing me to compromise my edits. I have to say that I disagree with some of your recent edits to the Houston article, but I did not give you a hard time or FORCE you to compromise with me because I did not like your edits. As you can see, I have never given anyone a hard time when they contribute to articles. You have been giving me a hard time and it is going to stop right now. I no longer plan on discussing anything on this talk page as it is creating nothing but drama. This talk page was silent until recently. Now there are so much drama going on in here with the Houston article and talk page. I will no longer give into any of your demands and/or compromises. I have gave into your demands the last few times because I did not have time for a debate with you. Because of that, you have taken advantage of me. Did I ever question or complain about your recent edits? No, I did not, but you question and demand/compromise most of my edits. I don't plan on discussing this matter any further as well. This response is not a compromise nor is it an acceptance of such compromise or proposal. This is purely a response of your actions against me recently. By the way, on the Texas article, the paragraph about UT System is first, then A&M System. All in order by population. That is just to show you that I am not biased against any school or system. I will be adding a paragraph and picture of Texas Southern University to the Houston article so no one will get offended and complain to me in the future. UH Collegian 04:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The reason why UH is seen as a "lower-end" university to some people because they are ignorant about it and think that the
University of Houston-Downtown and the University of Houston-Clear Lake is part of the University of Houston. Well it is NOT. I am going to tell everyone who reads this first hand and educate people that those two schools are NOT affiliated with UH in anyway. UH-Downtown and UH-Clear Lake is NOT a campus of the University of Houston. UH-Downtown and UH-Clear Lake are their own separate degree-granting universities. They have their own cultures and their own mascots, etc. In summary, there is only ONE campus of the University of Houston and it is located off of I-45 and Cullen Blvd. The University of Houston does not include or has any other campuses. Also, the name of the school is the "University of Houston", NOT "University of Houston main campus" or "University of Houston central campus". Those are all INCORRECT and are used by people who are not aware of the schools. This is why some people think UH is a "Low end" university, because they associate UHD and UHCL with UH. Again UH is not affiliated with UHD or UHCL. UHD and UHCL are separate from UH and are their own universities (not campuses of UH). I dont know how to make this any clearer. Yes, UHD and UHCL are "low end" universities. They are open-admission schools. Does anyone need me to explain what that is? It means anyone apply will get in. However, UH is not an open-admission school, it's admission process is selective and we don't like it when people think UHD and UHCL are extension campuses of UH, because they are NOT. Is this a clear explanation? I chose to go to UH because its business school is ranked number 3 in Texas (state universities) and top quarter in the United States. UH's business school is not "low end". If it was, I wouldnt be at UH. Is anyone still not clear about this? If so, inquire below and I will try my best to explain step-by-step. Also, UH might seem like a "low end" school because people at UHD and UHCL, when asked, they say that they go to UH which they really don't. The name change for UHD and UHCL are coming so those people won't claim they go to UH anymore. UH Collegian 02:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

  • UHCollegian, it is totally unacceptable to delete sections from the discussion page, especially other people's postings. If you want to rescind your earlier comments, then you can just say so and perhaps (gasp!) even apologize. I do not appreciate you deleting my postings, and I think you're starting to become a really disruptive user. --Jleon 12:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I only deleted ONE subsection of my post — the subsection I created titled "UH Collegian's response to Katefan0 in particular..." You happened to reply to me under that section where you could have replied in a new section or a section above and you never replied back. I did not mean to delete your comment. About 4 or 5 hours later after my intial post, I went back and deleted that subsection of my response to Katefan0 and replaced it with a new one. I happened to delete your comment, but not comments, since it was under the subsection of my response for Katefan0. How I am a "disruptive" user? Ever since I have been on here, I have never vandalize a page or give anyone a hard time or question their edits. I have never started any conversation on any talk pages either. Please explain why you feel that I am becoming a disruptive user (as I disagree with this). Everyone has incidents on here at least once and I would say this is my first. I mean, I have been making major edits to three articles and I havent been having a problem ever since. I would like a rationale to why you think I am a "disruptive" user. UH Collegian 18:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

-Your disrupting the process of evolution to this article. Also, you should never delete anything from a talk page to begin with. --Jleon 18:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, let's all take a breath. It is bad form to delete other users' comments, if that's indeed what happened (I haven't looked through the history to make claims either way). UHC, my request was made very politely; I took pains not to phrase my request in a way that might offend you. And, I haven't attempted to start an edit war or such as that over the information, even though it appears that the consensus on this page is with my preference. Let me address some of what you said specifically.
Maybe I should just go and erase it the next time someone else complains or give me a hard time about it. I have the liberty to do this since I wrote the entire section. You moved the paragraphs that I wrote, not vice versa, so I moved it back.
I'm definitely not suggesting that you erase anything. And I appreciate the amount of work you've done -- your contributions have been valuable. But your authorship of information doesn't give you license to rule over it like a personal feifdom (nor does it me). As Wikipedia says at the bottom of every page every time you edit an article, you should expect your contributions to be "edited mercilessly." We're all here to make the article better -- please don't view my criticism, which I think has been presented politely and constructively, as some sort of personal affront.
You made it sound like you're the victim and that I vandalized your swapped of my paragraphs, which I did not.
I don't think I sounded at all like I was a victim, I was simply making a request; also I never accused you of vandalism. I'm sorry you took my comments that way, it wasn't at all how they were meant.
Lately, you have been questioning and forcing me to compromise my edits. I have to say that I disagree with some of your recent edits to the Houston article, but I did not give you a hard time or FORCE you to compromise with me because I did not like your edits.
My initial thought is that all of Wikipedia is a compromise. Compromise is good, because it means a variety of viewpoints are represented. If you dislike the thought of compromising, you may have a very difficult time here. Also, if you disagree with some of my edits, I'd be the first one to encourage you to talk to me about them.
As for the rest of your comments about not contributing anymore to the talk pages, this really won't get us anywhere. I hope you weren't being serious and will reconsider some of those statements. Thanks for listening. · Katefan0(scribble) 14:45, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

UHC's recent edits

I don't want to make it seem like I'm piling on, but I'd like to protest the addition of so much information on UH's business school. It's no doubt a great program, but that information doesn't belong in an article about Houston, it belongs in an article about UH itself. I could see a very brief mention, but not this level of detail. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:13, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Photos

--Another problem is the number of pictures of the downtown. There are at least a half-dozen pictures showing exactly the same row of buildings. Certainly, there should be pics of the different areas which comprise its decentralized skyline, but showing the same buildings over and over again is totally pointless. I also must question the copyright status of many of these obviously-professional quality pics. UHCollegian, can you provide us some better sources on these? --Jleon 15:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's not exactly the "same row of buildings." But I do agree that the article has too many shots of buildings in general, a point I've made here before. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:31, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
As a way to get the ball rolling on a discussion of this type of thing, what would be your, say, top 5 list of photos that should be cut? · Katefan0(scribble) 18:47, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
I don't want any pictures to be cut. I have worked really hard the past 2 months looking for pictures. UH Collegian 19:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

A good start would be to delete the 2nd picture in the intro, the 2nd picture under "skyline", and the 2nd picture under "Transportation". One of the pics of the Texas Medical Center should probably go too. --Jleon 19:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

There is only one picture of the Texas Medical Center. UH Collegian 19:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Jleon, how would you feel about replacing some of the most redundant shots with other images? Here's one I'd propose as a replacement for something. A great shot of, I think the Space Shuttle Columbia, riding piggyback over the Johnson Space Center. [3] · Katefan0(scribble) 19:51, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

-That sounds like a good idea. The number of pics is not the problem, just the number of pics showing basically the same things. --Jleon 19:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

By my count, there are three separate shots of downtown from various angles. We should probably only have one. How about replacing two of them with other things? I'd propose the shuttle shot as one. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:02, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

-There'a also the panorama shot, and the two under "Transportation" So there's 6 of just the downtown skyline, and there are various others showing more level shots within downtown. --Jleon 20:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

True, I forgot the panorama shot, but that's kinda a cool one. So by my count that makes four. Uptown is a separate part of town, and shouldn't be counted as "downtown." I'd advocate for removing one of the shots of Uptown too, except that it's actually a shot of the former Transco Tower, which is a major landmark in the city. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:18, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
I wonder if we can't find a PD shot of Hermann Park. It's really a beautiful park and would make a nice addition. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:19, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
UHC? What do you think? I think we should take out one of the two downtown shots up top, and replace it a little lower with the shuttle/JSC shot. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:34, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, are you talking about putting JSC shot at the introduction or what? I think the JSC shot should go under the "people and culture" section and I will remove one of the pictures I posted under "people and culture" so that the JSC will fit. UH Collegian 20:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Oh, no, not at the intro. I just mean that I think we should probably remove one of the two photos up top, and then add something else -- like the shuttle photo -- somewhere else in the article. Of the two downtown shots up top, I personally like the topmost downtown shot better, but it doesn't really matter that much to me which one is removed. I have no preference really for where the shuttle shot would be placed, but I do agree that it probably shouldn't be above the infobox. Thanks for talking UHC, I appreciate it. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:49, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
What picture would you like to remove in the "people and culture" section so you can put the JSC picture there as I can't decide. You get to pick. UH Collegian 20:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
If you are having a hard time deciding which picture to remove from the "people and culture" section, there is a Demographic section in need of a picture. :) UH Collegian 21:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't know that any of those necessarily need to be removed. They're not really the ones that are redundant. The ones that are redudnant are the ones of downtown. Maybe it'd be better to place the shuttle shot by the intro after all. It's mentioned right there next to the infobox, it's not such an odd place to put it after all. I'd say remove the secondmost downtown photograph and replace it with the NASA deal? · Katefan0(scribble) 21:13, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
I have made an edit dedicated to you. I moved the Uptown picture to the introduction. Is that okay with you? I guess you can put a picture of JSC in the "District and communities" section and I'll write a paragraph about it, or you can do that as well. I think the Uptown picture looks nice in the intro with the downtown pic. Uptown is an important district for Housto, after downtown. Any questions or concerns/disagreement? Let me know. I hope you like what I did Katefan0. Now there are less downtown pics with only one dowtown pic in "Skyline" and intro sections instead of two. I got rid of the downtown pic from Eleanor Tinsley Park altogether. The pics on the Houston page is now more diversify. The other picture of Downtown that was removed is now on the metro page. UH Collegian 22:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I like the downtown/uptown juxtaposition on the top much better than two of the same thing; the night shot up top is striking especially. I do still feel like there are too many photos of buildings, but it does look better. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:45, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Looks like the Houston Ballet stub I made a couple days ago got included in today's "Did you know?" off the main page. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:25, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent stub. Congrats on making it featured on DYK. Houston is truly rich in arts related culture and venues. UH Collegian 06:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it is. It's one of the things I love most about Houston, and one of the things I love bragging on the most. It's always so satisfying to talk about how cosmopolitan Houston is with the uninformed. · Katefan0(scribble) 04:36, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Nigerian pop

Is there a source for the assertion that Houston has one of the largest Nigerian pops in the nation? · Katefan0(scribble) 15:36, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

As an aside, I've seen references in the Chronicle that it's large, but to assert that it's "one of the largest" really needs a source. · Katefan0(scribble) 04:34, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

That sentence about the Nigerian population that was added again by another user probably needs some copyediting again. Also, that section is supposed to be a summary, not a detailed version of what ethnicity or racial group is the largest or second largest in the U.S. Dinobrya, you don't see other groups putting in stuff like, "the Vietnamese American population is so and so largest in the U.S. after California, etc. or the "Hispanic population is the largest minority of Houston", etc. Get over it Dinobrya. Or at least write it correctly next time or it will be copyedited by me or someone else. 4.231.158.52 04:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, you're right, it is a summary. But if that information is true, and Houston really does have the 2nd largest Nigerian population, that would seem to me worthy of mention. A sentence on populations with superlatives of that nature are probably okay. Obviously we don't need to mention the 17th largest population, but maybe 1-5 or so should at least be considered; Wikipedia isn't paper, after all. Also, anon 4.231, please try to be a little more civil. Comments like "get over it" don't really help what we're all trying to do here -- make the article better. · Katefan0(scribble) 04:56, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
User:Toshiba added a ref. It's better than nothing, but I'd prefer to see some supporting documentation from a site that isn't essentially a blog. · Katefan0(scribble) 04:48, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hadn't realized this was a subject of some contention, found a reasonable quality source for the number if not the superlative. A very interesting fact anyway. I wouldn't have thought Houston was particularly diverse. Toshiba 05:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)




Okay, so you have put that the Nigerian origin population is about 100,000. These people, are they American nationals or Nigerian nationals? Since you provided the source from the U.S. embassy, then I would think that these figures of Nigerians are Nigerian nationals and, therefore, are not American nationals. So we are talking about foreign people here (non-American nationals). For people who don't know, the term "nationality/national and ethnicity are not the same. Nationality refers to country of citizenship, whereas, ethnicity refers to a group of culture (not race). (If people didn't know this already, "Hispanic" is not a race.) So if the figure is 100,000 for Nigerians who are Nigerian nationals, what about the figure for the Nigerians who are American nationals? Is this confusing to you, I can explain further. I would asssume that this section doesn't only talk about people of certain ethnic groups that are not American nationals, but could be American or non-American nationals.

In conclusion, there is really no figure for certain ethnic groups that are American nationals. So putting the Nigerian population at 100,000 is misleading since this only describes foreign Nigerians (non-American nationals). What are the figures for people of Nigerian descent that are Americans? If no figures can be provided, the 100,000 figure for Nigerians (foreign nationals/non-American) should be removed as it causes confusion and inconsistency. I believe that this section describes diversity of ethnic groups in broad base term to include people who are American natioanals and foreign nationals, not just foreign nationals. In the case of the Nigerian figure, it only describes Nigerian nationals and therefore understate the Nigerian ethnicity population and causes inconsistency within the whole section. 4.231.158.52 05:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I just made a minor copyedit again for clarity and consistency to recent addition by Toshiba again. It probably needs further copyediting by someone else. 4.231.158.52 06:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Also, Dinobrya and her annoymous accounts is the rudest and demanding person I have encountered on here. Watch what you say in your edit summary Dinobrya. You should also watch your tone of language on Talk:North Carolina as well. 4.231.158.52 06:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

User 4.231.158.52 yes, you're right it probably was referring to Nigerian nationals... it is clearer now. Toshiba 06:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the changes but there are several things I would like to say . . . First of all, Dinobrya is a man. My name is Dino Bryant. Secondly, I was not being rude; I was simply trying to press for a better edit of an ethnic group which according to the State Department may well be best represented in Houston. It should not be a side note. Thirdly, I owe no apology to anyone here on this talk page and no one will intimidate me from doing the right thing. I personally am happy that someone did something to give Houston the credit it deserved. Dinobrya 9:41

Nobody should feel intimidated; everyone's edits, if they are properly sourced and pertinent, should be welcomed. However, I'd urge everyone to re-read Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. We may all have occasional disagreements, but we should always be civil with one another. We're all in this together. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:24, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

POV Problems in Highways section

The following POV problems need to be addressed in the section on highways:

1. Introductory sentence takes the POV's that Houston's development (described as "sprawl") is a bad thing and implies that Houston's lack of zoning is bad by blaming it for so-called "sprawl." This is a political opinion as not all consider urban growth to be "sprawl" and whether or not zoning's absence is its cause is highly debatable (Washington, D.C. and its suburbs for example are heavily zoned yet there is "sprawl" of city commuters etc. deep into Maryland, Virginia, and even West Virginia now!)

2. Attributing Houston's air problems to cars in and of themselves and attributing the ozone problem to them is a POV assertion. Most of Houston's air pollution actually comes from the gulf coast refineries and chemical plants. Furthermore the pollution that is caused by cars is not so much a result of "car dependence" as the article currently asserts but rather due to congestion on certain freeways that causes cars to unnecessarily idle for longer periods while waiting on traffic. This has been shown in studies for several years by Texas A&M's transportation center.

3. The assertion that "frontage roads make freeway access very easy, but not very pretty" is POV. I could just as easily say "sound walls are not very pretty" as sound walls are very common in places without frontage roads. Also, frontage roads are not inherently "unusual." Houston has a lot of them but other cities - especially in Texas and especially younger cities - also have them.

4. The current version says that frontage roads are the reason Houston has attracted gas stations. Is there any reliable source or study showing this? Every major city has gas stations whether they are located on the frontage road or simply on the off ramp where there's no frontage road.

Please address these issues to make the highway section more NPOV, then the tag can be removed. Rangerdude 03:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I attempted to edit some of the most biased sentences. I know it hasn't totally resolved the POV problem with this section but hopefully it is a start? I'm new to this so perhaps someone with more experience can do better. I didn't make any major changes to the section - just reworded sentences and tried to show both sides of the key issues. I hope this was okay? Salty Kid talk 23:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Well scratch that, someone reverted the page to a previous edit. I wonder if they plan to address these issues or should we try again? Salty Kid | talk 01:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Use Care When Reverting Please

There seems to be something of a personal dispute between a couple of IP users. Please, when reverting the article, consider what changes unrelated to your dispute have been made in other sections. Salty Kid | talk 07:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

On The Heights and altitude above sea level

The article advances the notion that the Heights are the highest point in Houston. I'm sure that was true in 1930. Have a look at Google Earth which will show that a great portion of the city (to the northwest, primarily) is now higher. Cf. http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/2005/2874/sim2874.htm, Figure 3, in which the entire area east of the intersection of I-10 West and Beltway 8 West is shown to be higher than the supposed mean of 50 feet. Unfortunately I don't have a source for the correct mean. The Heights-as-highest comment is fine in *some* context for historical reasons, but not here...

Consulates

WHO REMOVED THE CONSULATES PAGE? AND IF SO WHERE IS IT? IT TOOK ME A LONG TIME TO COMPOSE THAT AND I WANT TO KNOW WHO MOVED IT. IMMEDIATLY!!! urban909