Wikipedia

Talk:Houston/Archive 10

< Talk:Houston
Latest comment: 11 months ago by Big Money Threepwood in topic Anti food sharing ordinance
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Nicknames again

Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

Hi, I read the archive which said ya'll essentially agreed to keep only the "official" nickname for the infobox. I disagree with this decision. This not how the nicknames have been done for any other city that I'm aware of. Take for example the copious nicknames found in the infobox of New Orleans, Boston, New York City, or Austin. We have sources attesting to the nicknamedness of "The Bayou City"[1] and "H-Town" [2] (which even has the band brandishing it).--Louiedog (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Houston has several documented nicknames. Bayou City is one of them. I happen to like the one that is there now. Space City gives the reader Houston is a city of major accomplishments (landing on the moon, ect.), it also gives them the image that Houston is a city of the future, with space exploration. Oil City, Bayou City do not give the reader the same image. I think Space City should remain as Houston's nickname.Mattscards (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
We wanted to keep the single official nickname in the infobox. The other nicknames are mentioned in the "Culture" section and also in featured list Nicknames of Houston which has a link at the beginning of the "Culture" section. Postoak (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Right, I'm just wondering why we're only keeping the one when it's hardly the only to qualify.--Louiedog (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
It makes no sense at all, is inconsistent, and is actually misinformative ("Bayou City" is far older and more common: inter alia, google brings up c.58,200 for "space city" houston -wiki but c.109,000 for "bayou city" houston -wiki; meanwhile, it's c.388,000 for h-town/Htown) but it's obviously preferred by a few active users. It seems like WP:OWN and WP:ARTSPAM to me, but I'll add a note that it is merely the official nickname so readers know to look around for the others. Meanwhile, we can start a list for a new consensus. FOR including Bayou City & H-Town. -LlywelynII (talk) 06:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The nickname issue was discussed extensively on several occasions, please check out Talk:Houston/Archive 5. The major problem was the addition of numerous incorrect, obscene or non-notable nicknames in the infobox. It was agreed to keep only the official name in the infobox and add the others to the Culture section. Nicknames of Houston, which is a featured list, was created and linked to from the Culture section. I believe that we resolved the issue adequately and fairly and certainly feel that WP:OWN and WP:ARTSPAM is incorrect. However, I'm open to revising what is in the infobox. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I've gone through the discussion. It boils down to, "Let's only keep the official name lest the box become a crud bucket. I disagree, especially because so many sources exist that support other names in addition. Consensus can change even if ya'll have WP:TALKEDABOUTIT.--Louiedog (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
My vote is to list just one in the infobox, while mentioning the others somewhere in the body. It does become an coatrack if we start listing every nickname in the infobox. nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 19:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I linked the fully sourced Nicknames of Houston article directly from the infobox. We can keep the infobox clean and provide all nicknames in the linked article. How does this work? Postoak (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree that only the official nickname should be listed in the infobox. This has been discussed various times and the consensus was to use the official nickname for the city. Other nicknames are included in the "Culture" section and at its own article: Nicknames of Houston. —RJN (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Beta ranking

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I would like to add a one sentence line to the end of the lede paragraph cliaming Houston as a Beta World City. They are in the same group classification as Rio de Janeiro and Montreal. This World City classification Houston has earned is the status that Houston is a city recognized by name alone around the world and does not need the state or country behind it as in Houston, Texas. If anyone doesn't oppose to this I will enter this one sentence line. Mattscards (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem as long as the statement is well referenced and others agree. However, I don't think the state/country name became unnecessary because of the world city classification and if so would this be notable enough to be in the lead paragraph? Thanks, Postoak (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Mattscards, if you read the third paragraph of the lede and the first sentence in the "Economy" section, you will find that this article already mentioned Houston rated as a beta world city. It is not necessary to mentioned this twice in the lede. —RJN (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I did read the 3rd paragraph. I was asking if it would look better at the end of the first paragraph. Mattscards (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree, I misunderstood his question. I thought he wanted to elaborate on what was already in the lead. We certainly don't need an additional mention. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Population in lead

Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
See also: Talk:New_York_City § Estimated_population_in_lede

The population is mentioned in the infobox (actual numeric statistics) and in the lead paragraph (expressed as a rounded figure for stylistic reasons). I prefer the rounded population figure in the lead since the full number is already found in the infobox and it looks much cleaner in prose. Postoak (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Postoak per above. —RJN (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Postoak I have mentioned this before. The numbers I am posting is from the United States Census BureauI feel strongly about the opening line having the official latest population release of the city. I understand you think that rounded off numbers look cleaner, but I feel they must be the accurate number released by the expert. It is what this represents. The actual number tells you in the opening statement that what you are about to read from there forward is accurate information. I feel if you generalize and estimate, a percentage of people will view the information there on out with caution. You are actually changing an officially released number by doing this. In all the World Almanacs and encyclopedias when they give the opening article about the city, they always give the actual number of the latest official estimate. I have changed it back to the way I had it before. I spent a lot of time gathering these links and accurate information this morning and references. If you have a problem with this, I will be happy to discuss it with you here first. Please do not delete my posts. Thank you. Mattscards (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The exact numerical estimate figure is listed in the infobox to the right of the lead section. When writing in prose, numbers over a million are written as X million or X.X million. In this case, it is written as 2.2 million. This is a proper style of writing a prose when a numerical figure is in the millions. Mattscards, you should refer to a college-level writing handbook. There has been a consensus on writing the prose this way for all United States cities with populations over a million. I would suggest you stop changing this style in this article and any other eight U.S. cities with populations over a million. Your wording changes are not inline with the copyediting style guide. If you look carefully at any city articles, there is an infobox to right of the lead section which lists an exact numerical estimated figure. Consensus has been established for this article and other articles to have it written as 2.2 million. You are the only one changing it for this article and other articles, and your changes have been reverted by many people. As stated by JimWae at Talk:New York City, please read WP:BRD and WP:lede. Also, discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities/Guideline, Talk:New York City#Estimated population in lede, and User talk:JimWae apply here regarding your edits to this article or any other city articles with populations over a million. —RJN (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Mattscards, this is a current discussion regarding your edit behaviors on U.S. city articles. During a discussion, you should not make your changes that are in question. There is a current consensus for this article and other U.S. city articles to use the proper writing style of X.X million in the prose. The exact numerical estimated population figures are in the infobox of each city. Do you not know where to find the infobox or what it is? —RJN (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe the formal encyclopedia-wide style guideline WP:MOSNUM has made it pretty clear for me which way to do it in prose—text of the article—for the benefit of the reader of the article: "Avoid excessively precise values where they are unlikely to be stable or accurate, or where the precision is unnecessary in the context." (§ 3.4 Large numbers) There's plenty more guidance at the cited source, for the newer editor who may not be as familiar with writing for the target audience. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

RJN, I have stated my reasons in many areas why I feel that the exact population should be included on the first paragragh. Now, you reference to me knowing where the infobox is.. yes, this is where I corrected today a reference to a population that was there for 3 years and corrected it with accurate information.. and link. As far as your reference to me start reading a college level book... I have 2 degrees from Texas A&M University. I have heard your reasons for keeping the the population at a rounded off figure. I feel this is wrong and always will. This whole thing got started because you do not like to respond to things on your User talk page. You delete posts that people spend lots of time gathering information and give no reasons why because you feel you have deserved that honor. I am going to be making post changes and updates for the better. And talk about them. I would appreciate if you are involved in those conversations before you delete my posts. Mattscards (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The population information in the infobox is and has been accurate, I'm not to sure why you claim that you corrected it. Please check the article history. Postoak (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The reference was a link that was 3 years old. The numbers were correct but you click on the link it gave a 2006 release. Mattscards (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Should it be policy in any enterprise that when just one particular participant can cite only his "strong feelings" for preferring his own version, that all other editors should submit to that person? Well, maybe if that person is "the boss", there is little alternative. However, there is no "boss" engaged in this discussion.--JimWae (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hispanic Population

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Further information: Houston § Demographics

The article says that Houston has the 3rd largest populations of Hispanics. The reference link 92 gives a 2001 Census numbers but shows Houston as the 4th largest (behind New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. I looked and I could not find an updated link that shows this as being # 3 from the US Census Bureau. I am sure Houston has passed up Chicago within the last 8 years but I can't find this reference. Should this show Houston at # 4 unless a reference can be found? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattscards (talk • contribs)

I agree, I checked around and could not find a reference for the 3rd largest. Postoak (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Crime stats need per capita to be meaningful

The auto theft statistic needs to be per capita based to be meaningful. The raw number is largely due to the larger population of Houston. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.211.131 (talk • contribs)

Companies in Houston

Use the Houston 100 list found in the Houston Chronicle newspaper lists major companies in the Houston area and is found in the business section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.211.131 (talk • contribs)

Other Notable Houston

- First lunch counter sit in (1960s) - Houston forced to move from an all at-large council election to a mix of at large and district based city council members (went to the US Supreme Court). - Texas Medical Center would be the 17th largest downtown if it was considered by itself - Houston was small before and during WWII, grew dramatically afterwards and therefore does not suffere from large scale problems found in older cities —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.211.131 (talk • contribs)

Access date?

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I'm quite newbie at editing. After linking back to another page I'm editing Gene Kelton and including an external link for ref. Official website I noticed that the other references have "access date"? Sorry, nothing on the help page or in what you get when clicking the icon in the bar above... (Well, darn it. It's not available on this page, but it looks like an open book as I recall.) Anyway, none of those mention "access date" at all, so what should I do to include that?

Of course, I accessed the site today.

Sorry for newbie mistake, and thanks for any help.

Pearl Dragon (talk) 12:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Some types of sources are prone to sudden modifications without outside notification (e.g. websites) while other types of sources are highly resistant to modification (e.g. hard copy books and newspapers). The "access date" parameter to various citation templates is meant primarily for those sources that are prone to sudden modifications to document the time, and thus the specific version, of the source used as a reference. For templates covering situations where "access date" is of little to no value then the parameter is present mostly to preserve consistency between the accepted parameters between the various templates. --Allen3 talk 13:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Fattest city paragraph

Latest comment: 14 years ago22 comments7 people in discussion

I'd like to remove the "fattest city" mention in the Culture section. As I mentioned earlier this year, the survey is unscientific. Even the magazine editor states this. The annual list is a publicity gimmick to sell magazines. The for-profit magazine probably gets additional advertising coverage when mentioned here in the article. The ranking apparently is not mentioned on any other city articles that were included in the ranking. It is given undue weight here. Comments? Postoak (talk) 04:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree...It seems more like trivia, and inaccurate trivia at that. Unfortunately, I bet it will keep getting re-inserted, given the fact that media repeats it whenever they get a chance. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 06:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I plan to remove the paragraph if nobody objects. Agreed? Postoak (talk) 03:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Knock yourself out :-) --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 04:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Unless the "fattest city" information is also entered on all other city articles that made the "list" then it stays off here. Postoak (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree, especially since the method used by the magazine is self-admittedly "unscientific". --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 02:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I think you may be forgetting the metric by which new information on Wikipedia is judged. The standard for inclusion here is notability and whether it can be verified, and has nothing to do with whether the Men’s Fitness survey is scientific or included in other Wikipedia articles. This information about Houston's repeated high position in the Men’s Fitness study is important, notable, and well-sourced; it deserves to be mentioned here regardless of whether it is mentioned in other articles. I am sure those other articles mention this same kind of information (famous and nationally reported awards and surveys, even if not scientific), so feel free to add in this particular study (though I doubt any other cities are as egregious as Houston) if you feel like it. Improve those articles, don’t tear this one down.
Houston was given this "award" by Men's Health after information from the CDC, EPA, Nielsen Media Research, etc was run through whatever formula the magazine uses to determine the winner. The magazine is not claiming that Houston residents have the highest average BMI, body fat percentage, or even weight; it is not making any scientific claims. The magazine is just announcing that Houston has the worst combination of several factors deemed by them to be indicative of "fatness."
Should I go to the article on Tom Hanks and remove information about him winning Academy Awards for best actor? Obviously not. A private organization (like Men’s Fitness) made up a set of subjective criteria (like those used to determine the so-called “fattest city”) and gave him a title that has a lot of cultural significance, despite the fact that it is not scientific. Therefore, it is still notable and included in his article. Therefore, the Men’s Fitness study (which and is reported on every year by USA Today, CNN, etc AND actually caused the mayor of Houston to launch a city-wide fitness campaign in response) is still notable and will be included in the Houston article.
I have reinserted the information about the Men’s Fitness survey, and sincerely hope you will not remove it again without providing some actual reasons. Just so we are clear, “it’s not scientific” and “it’s not included in other articles” are not actual reasons, as I have explained in detail above. If you are not satisfied with my reasoning here, I suggest we mark this conversation with a request for comment tag and get some outside opinions on this. If the consensus is to remove important, notable, and well-sourced information about a survey that has influenced Houston politics and done a great deal to shape the city’s image on a national level, then I will abide by that. Dunne409 (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The amount of attention this has caused in both local and national media clearly supports notability. Such unscientific magazine ratings (best places to live, etc.) are routinely included in wiki articles on cities. It certainly merits a paragraph in the article. Plazak (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
This is an annual publicity gimmick to sell magazines. Other cities have been on this list, yet it must only be mentioned here. We're promoting a false, unscientific survey in a featured article. Postoak (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
As I outlined above, “it’s not scientific” and “it’s not included in other articles” are not valid objections to the inclusion of this information. Do you have some sort of counterargument, or are you just going to repeat your same points over and over regardless of what other people say? I do not understand your contention that this survey is "false." Read the second paragraph of my previous comment if you are confused about what this survey is actually claiming when it labels Houston as "fat." As I mention there, this Men's Fitness survey is just a subjective rating that happens to have large cultural importance in America. There are no scientific claims here, so I don't see what you mean when you say the survey is "false." As for the idea that the Men's Fitness study is some sort of "publicity gimmick," couldn't one say that all articles, features, and pictures in any magazine are just a kind of "publicity gimmick" to attract readers and attention to the magazine? Anyway, Wikipedia includes entire articles solely devoted to certain notable publicity stunts and gimmicks, so the idea that a publicity stunt (and I do not even agree that this survey IS a publicity stunt) couldn't even be mentioned in other articles is preposterous. Dunne409 (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The arguments made by Dunne409 are logical and reasonably proposed. Postoak seems to have disregarded the substance of Dunne409's arguments multiple times, repeating worn out arguments that have, in my opinion, been invalidated by the points levied by Dunne409. If Postoak would like to address the substantive aspects of Dunne409's objections with convincing counter-arguments, then maybe the "fattest-city" information can be removed. Until the arrival of said substantive and convincing counter-arguments, my vote is for the continued inclusion of the information in the article. Thanks for the work, Dunne409.Nobradovich —Preceding undated comment added 18:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC).
Yeah, right. You must know Dunne409 quite well since you allow him to change your religious preference. [3]? Postoak (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Dunne409, you'll be lucky if no one submits this to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations --Jleon (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

An "investigation" will reveal that our IP addresses come from different continents... Nobradovich is just an old friend to whom I happened to mention this dispute. As you can see, he is not an experienced editor and doesn't know how to appropriately bring himself into debates like this. Dunne409 (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like WP:Meatpuppetry... --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 04:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, rest assured that I did not solicit his support on this issue, just mentioned it to him since I am a loser and this kind of thing qualifies as news about "what's going on" in my life. Though he has been a user for several years, he doesn't really know anything about editing or Wikipedia policy, so apparently he thought that his comically exaggerated support of me would be appropriate/beneficial. If this strikes some people as inappropriate, then I apologize and will be much more careful about this kind of thing in the future. Thanks for your understanding. Dunne409 (talk) 07:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I would say all of those phony magazine ratings should be removed from all city articles. Nevertheless, obesity is certainly a public health problem in Houston and perhaps a small mention of it in the Health section would be approriate. --Jleon (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The phoniness of the rating is not a valid argument for or against inclusion. The coverage of this rating in mainstream media (not just in Men's Health) is the key point here, and it clearly supports the notability of this topic. Plazak (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's a source from the American Obesity Association (http://obesity1.tempdomainname.com/subs/fastfacts/cities.shtml). According to this, Houston is at the top only when obesity is measured with environmental factors considered instead of just BMI averages. Therefore, I think the notability of it is debatable, and there should not be more than just a brief mention of it in the article. There certainly shouldn't be an enitre section about it. --Jleon (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It's notable and we've made mention of follow-up sources that tell how seriously to take it. I don't see the problem.--Louiedog (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That's fine with me, but the notion of creating an entire section of the article about it is really overdoing things. If it was the top by BMI as well, there would be more of a basis to it. --Jleon (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Men's Health magazine has it's own fake fat list. If we are going to promote the Men's Fitness fake survey, shouldn't we be neutral and equally promote Men's Health [4]. Or should we just focus on Men's Fitness because it is highly reputable, like the National Inquirer (actually Men's Fitness is owned by American Media, owner of the Inquirer and other quality reading materials. Now I see the scholarly similarities). Postoak (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Districts section

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The recently added section was removed because it was unsourced, not neutral and contains some WP:OR. Moving here to clean it up and add later if all agrees. Postoak (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


The city has a number of districts. Historically, these districts were called "wards" and they tended to have distinct populations. Redevelopment has rendered most of those distinctions meaningless, but the modern version of Houston still has districts.

Houston has three areas that look like a typical downtown in a big city with high-rise buildings and, at street level, concessions to pedestrians that include shops and eating establishments.

  • Downtown Houston - Center of the city, still the home of high finance and big business. Houston is second only to New York City in corporate headquarters of Fortune 500 companies. Many of them are located downtown including some of the world's largest energy companies. Downtown Houston also boasts the second largest theatre district in the United States and the city has world class permanent organizations such as the Houston Symphony and Houston Ballet. The Houston Pavillions entertainment district opened in October 2008 between Main St. and the Toyota Center.
  • Texas Medical Center and Rice Unversity - To the south and east of downtown lie Rice University, the many attractions of Hermann Park, and the Texas Medical Center (or just "the med center"), including some of the world's best hospitals. The Rice Village is a highly concentrated area of restaurants, bars, and shopping.
  • Uptown or The Galleria Area is west of the city center and is known for its namesake, a huge high-end shopping mall complex. It also has the tallest building in the United States outside of a main downtown area, the Williams tower. This area has many great restaurants, vibrant nightlife, and infamous traffic jams during peak hours.

Situated elsewhere in town, between these three pillars of development and surrounding them, are a dozen or more distinct districts that define the more-accessible heart of the people and the city.

  • Warehouse District - Formerly an industrial zone, the Warehouse District is now full of loft conversions and trendy residents, some good eats and nightlife.
  • Houston Theater District - a 17-block area in the heart of Downtown. It is home to Houston's nine performing arts organizations, the 130,000 square-foot Bayou Place entertainment complex, restaurants, movies, plazas and parks.
  • Montrose - Ideally bordered by Midtown, Heights, River Oaks, and the Medical Center, Montrose is both a street name and a neighborhood. Montrose is Houston's longtime home of its gay and lesbian population, as well as host to the city's museums. Lower Westheimer (Westheimer in between Montrose Blvd. and Shepherd) offers an array of resale fashion shops, eclectic shopping as well as antique stores. The gay nightlife is centered around Pacific St. and surrounding streets. Many Montrose neighborhood pubs attract an eclectic and diverse crowd.
  • Houston Museum District - commonly known as, “The Museum District,” is an association of museums, galleries, cultural centers and community organizations dedicated to promoting the arts, sciences, and cultural amenities of the area. The Houston Museum District currently comprises 18 museums that recorded a collective attendance of over 8.7 million in 2007. Bordered roughly by Rice University, the Montrose area and Texas Medical Center, the Museum District specifically refers to the area located within a 1.5 mile radius of the Mecom Fountain in Hermann Park.
  • River Oaks - Houston's most exclusive and affluent neighborhood, home to eye-popping mansions and the River Oaks Shopping Center, one of America's first suburban shopping districts and a great display of Art Deco architecture.
  • Midtown - The area between Downtown and the medical center. This area experienced serious redevelopment in the 1990's and is now home to many of Houston's young professionals, newer restaurants and bars/clubs. The nightlife here is hip and very vibrant.
  • Houston Heights - A large district of gingerbread Victorian homes as well as early 20th Century bungalows. Like its sister neighborhood Montrose, The Heights is home to a diverse population from artists and musicians to wealthy professionals. Parts of the Heights are still dry, fostering a large number of BYOB restaurants ideal for those who enjoy their own selected wine.
  • Southwest Houston - Despite a plethora of rundown apartment complexes and a reputation for crime, it is also home to some of the city's most desirable neighborhoods, including Meyerland and the charming City of Bellaire. This area is almost completely outside of the 610 Loop, although the City of Bellaire is partially inside the 610.
  • Chinatown or Asiatown- Located southwest of the center, it would be the largest Chinatown in the world area-wise, but the term Chinatown is misleading due to the fact that the majority of the shops and restaurants cater to Houston's large Vietnamese population. This area is outside the 610 Loop and near the Beltway, Houston's outer freeway loop.
The section has been created as an article (and restored to this article - I removed it with a pointer to this discussion). --bonadea contributions talk 09:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The removed section (and new article) is mostly original research. It does not reflect the true management districts of the city, many are neighborhoods. Postoak (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Its baaaaack... I don't want to revert it, and hence violate 3rr, even though this appears to be a "newbie" editor. I left a message on his/her talk page and hopefully progress will be made there. If not, then I guess we can deal with it as disruptive editing. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 03:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I reverted - see my edit summary. Airplaneman ✈ 22:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Real estate section

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I removed this section because it was unsourced, appears to be news and is a non-standard section for a city article per WP:CITY. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Skyline

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
 

I've taken a panorama of the downtown Houston skyline. If anyone agrees, I think it should replace the panorama currently in the "Cityscape" section. Jujutacular T · C 05:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I support your image. The current image includes more "cityscape" but doesn't look that great IMHO. Good work! Postoak (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I might try for a better picture sometime, with less trees covering. Know any good spots? Jujutacular T · C 08:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I've seen some great images taken from the South Freeway facing north. Also from the east looking west (maybe near the convention center) with all the newer buildings on the east side of downtown shown. 18:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Your picture is much prettier than the one that was currently there, but I say we should keep them BOTH, and put yours under another section, because the previous one is more illustrative, as it shows two of the largest business districts in Houston, as opposed to only one. Thanks for your new picture, though. It's much more encyclopedia-looking than the other one :).--AndresTM (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In December 2010, English Wikisource will be featuring Houston: Where Seventeen Railroads Meet the Sea as its Featured text. The book was written by Author:Jerome Hammond Farbar and published in 1913 and includes some coloured illustrations of scenes and buildings of that period. We hope that it provides some interest to you. billinghurst sDrewth 01:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Temperature??

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Why the hell is a branch of the Hong Kong government considered a source of temperatures in Houston? S51438 (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

What the hell does it matter? It's a reference. Postoak (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
A better question is, how and why does the Hong Kong government monitor Houston's weather? I've also noticed that the record high and record low temperatures keep getting removed. Do these "official" Hong Kong numbers not agree with them? We just set a record yesterday and I can't even put it in the chart? Something is screwed up with the Climate section of the article. S51438 (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Why don't we restore to the original weather box that included the high and low records? I didn't even realize that they were missing until now. Postoak (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Off topic but...can somebody please upload some better pictures of..well everything, it makes the city look really small and dull, when i/we know its not — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.5.105.136 (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Why Hobby for climate averages?

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Intercontinental is the official station for Houston. [5][6] and has been for decades [7].

Also, why are we sourcing a frozen-in-time pdf? The latest official data appears here: [8] including the record highs on June 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6: [9]

Barring a natural disaster, they update records daily. They claim they update only monthly, but obviously they update more often (see above).

And no need to cite a Hong Kong source!

Anyone have a reason why I shouldn't revert this back to the IAH climate data, which the official site? Ufwuct (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The weather chart was replaced and updated with these references a while back, not sure which editor updated it. I don't see any issue with a Hong Kong source as long as a reference is provided. It appears to be reputable. I see no reason why you can't restore back to the original reference. Postoak (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Conversely, I don't see why, given two equally reputable sources, that one would choose the source farthest from the area in question. If there is a reliable local source, it is at least equal, if not greatly preferable to, an international source, as this pertains to a locality.204.65.34.246 (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

New images

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I think that the new montage and images provided by Hequals2henry look great. They certainly are an improvement over the old, tired images that have been there for almost 5 years. The montage is excellent. I support that we keep them on the page. Thanks, Postoak (talk)

Please also note that the new images have proper licensing and copyright statements. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 06:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Postoak. Yes I completely agree with him. What makes it okay that similar cities such as Dallas or even lesser significant ones such as Charlotte get better pages? Why doesn't Houston deserve a great page? Has the boss of the Houston page seen pages of other similar cities? After you have seen those pages, How do you feel about the Houston page? This page does not do justice to Houston. I thought Wikipedia is suppose to be unbiased. Nothing that characterizes Houston is being shown. The Galleria is barely being mentioned. The Houston cityscape image shows about 7 buildings out of the 50 or 60 that we have. The image for the Houston Ship Channel looks like there's a dirty layer of pollution above the city. Many attractions have no images, only words. The Texas Medical Center, a place that attracts global attention, only gets one thumbnail image like everything else. How unjustified is that. My edition simply gives Houston so much more justice. (Hequals2henry (talk) 06:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC))

page looks too boring so plz if you have the abiltiy to make it MUUUUUUUUCH better plz do, houston deserves better than any other city out there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.50.208 (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Negotiation

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Whoever has a desire to completely change the Houston page back to its old state, that means having the old montage, the old layouts, the small TMC picture, one single Hermann Park picture to represent the whole "Tourism and recreation" section, one cityscape picture that shows 8 buildings, must understand that there is a thing called "Negotiation"; there is a thing called compromise. Simply destroying someone else's effort to improve the Houston page just because you have the power to do so is rude. Believe or not, there are people out there who wishes to see their city being fairly represented. Houston deserves better than having 6 pictures on its page. Thank you very much. (Hequals2henry (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC))

File:METRO Light Rail3.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

An image used in this article, File:METRO Light Rail3.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Economy?

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm not an economist, but to me it seems confusing that the text says that 26.3% of Houston's GAP is based on mining, while the graphic showing the major economic sectors of Houston, shows that 3% of its economy is based on this sector. I assume the numbers represent different things, but at least to the average person, it seems unclear what these numbers are based on, and why they are so different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.250.251 (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Human Trafficking

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. I recently edited the article to mention that Houston is a major hub of human trafficking, and especially sex trafficking in the United States. The edit was quickly undone and labeled as vandalism. However, the connection between Human Trafficking and Houston is not vandalism, it is fact. I say this as someone who lives in the Houston area. I suspect the reason for the reversal of my edit was that I didn't follow some protocol about article editing. Perhaps there is some procedure that a proposed edit has to go through.

That's why I'm posting this here. Houston is a major hub of human trafficking, and more than 90% of Human trafficking cases in the US have ties in Houston. Can someone help add this to the page?--Gyinagal (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Gyinagal

Hello, Yes I reverted your edit because you slipped it in within context of another topic. Your edit has nothing to do with drugs and the reference at the end of the sentence does not support your addition. You need to provide references that support your edits to any article - WP:REF. I suggest that you add a sentence after drug trafficking, provide references for everything and anything you add and perhaps link in article Human trafficking in the United States. Also, I did not label your edit as vandalism, not sure why you say that. Postoak (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Temperature above 90°F and 100°F

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

According to NOAA 90°F occurs on average 106.5 days and 100°F occurs on average 4.6 days (1981-2010) in Houston intercontinental airport. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=hgx 99°F days average for 90°F is dubious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:39AF:800:F97C:D24:4B45:FDEF (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Almost literally every article about a major world city wikilinks the country in the first paragraph

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Seriously. Go look at World's largest cities and see how many of them wikilink the name of the country within the first paragraph, often even in the first sentence. See if it's almost every single one of them. I tried, twice, to wikilink the name of Houston's country, only to get reverted twice. This article should follow the accepted style of all our other major city articles. Red Slash 04:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I have yet again rewrote and linked the country name, as United States, not United States of America (USA), etc., this appears to match articles on other US cities. If it gets reverted again, let's start a discussion at WP:CITIES and based on consensus make the appropriate changes to the guideline on US cities. Cheers — MusikAnimal talk 16:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Threat to FA status

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The sports section along with many other sentences throughout the article are unreferenced... this will need to be addressed if the article is to retain it's FA status. I will try to work on this a bit myself, any help is appreciated. Any unsourced content that you feel is likely to be challenged can simply be removed. Thanks — MusikAnimal talk 22:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

  Done many thanks to User:Postoak! — MusikAnimal talk 05:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Section Order

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. I've just re-done the article to conform to the guidelines in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. One omission is that there was no section in the existing article for "Parks and Recreation". Someone might wish to address this. Onel5969 (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Alternate web URL for city government website

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Remember cityofhouston.gov is also a web domain of the City of Houston. It's good to keep track of all web domains for archival purposes and for checking for alternate locations of content. Remember to use them on the Wayback Machine so you can get past materials too! WhisperToMe (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Population

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I have REPEATEDLY corrected the FACTS of Houston's population and where we rank nationally as far as size goes. Some bozo continues to change it back. Let the facts be stated with multiple sources to back it up....

Houston is the FIFTH (5th) largest metro area in the country. It is NOT sixth. There have been multiple stories published about this including one in the Houston Business Journal. Even on the Philadelphia page, it mentions that Philadelphia is 6th. Please see the sources below and CHANGE IT BACK. Leave the damn thing alone! Here are some FACTS:

Fastest growing in the United States and #9 in the WORLD: http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/morning_call/2012/01/houston-ranks-as-north-americas.html

Houston is 5th largest metro: http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/morning_call/2011/08/houston-moves-up-in-largest-population.html

Houston fastest growing: http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smart-takes/houston-named-fastest-growing-city-in-us-heres-the-top-25/17646 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.50.95.151 (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to step on any other editor's work, but I see an apparent discrepancy in the infobox regarding the population density, area, and population of the city of Houston. The land area is 1553 km^2, the population is 2,160,821, and so dividing one by the other should give 1391/km^2 as the population density, yet the infobox gives a different number. Which one of these three figures is wrong? Thanks, Houston experts! —GraemeMcRaetalk 18:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi GraemeMcRae,

You posted your comment in January, but the page says the population is 2,195,914. That's why your population density calculation is different. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)oldsanfelipe

Old map -- not hi-res enough to read the street names

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please (feel free to) refer to this new section of the "Talk:" page File_talk:Ashburn's_Houston_City_Map.jpg. (btw: Why is it on "en.wikipedia.org", instead of somewhere on "wikimedia"?) --Mike Schwartz (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Population Estimate updates

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

First, the unnamed poster is right. Houston is the 5th largest metro area in the US. Also, I updated the status from the 4 year old 2.1 million (2010)to a more current estimate 2.16 million (2012 estimate, US Census Bureau). In a few days, the US Census Bureau will update to the 2013 estimates, and with Houston being one of the fastest growing cities in the US, it may have to be updated again. Thanks to all who contribute. Mattscards (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

You can't just change the population without changing what we're saying that number is. Now has a 2013 number but says 2010 census. --Jeremyb (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Houston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Houston weather

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An anon editor made some incorrect comments, off the cuff, (See the revert here) without the support of a reliable source about Houston weather, claiming that Los Angeles has warmer weather than Houston and that Miami has warmer weather than Houston. I reverted because it was based completely upon the editor opinion. Now, I have done much research but a look at the average numbers for Houston, Los Angeles, and Miami for the summer months of June, July, and August and it is clear that his comments are clearly off the mark. For June, Houston ave hi 91, Los Angeles 78, and Miami 90. For July, Houston ave hi 94, LA 83, and Miami 91. For Aug, Hou ave hi 94, LA 82, and Miami 91. The results are the same for average low, except that Miami's ave low is one or two degrees higher. By any rate of measurement, Houston has some of the hottest weather in the U.S. so the anon editor's comments are off base and the comments were not supported by reliable sources.--ML (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Area

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

At the time of this posting, the information listed under area is the following: 

• City 627.8 sq mi (1,625.2 km2)
• Land 634 sq mi (1,642.1 km2)
• Water 27.9 sq mi (72.3 km2)

Obviously, those numbers don't add up. Either the land and water areas listed are incorrect, or the city is significantly bigger than listed. This discrepancy should be corrected. Aoa8212 (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Houston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Featured, valued, or quality images?

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am surprised by the lack of featured, valued, or even quality images of Texas at English Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia Commons. Is anyone aware of any qualifying images that could be nominated? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Evaluation of content

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, I would like to evaluate this page. This article does a great job with its sourcing redirecting those interested in the topic into other subjects or topics that are closely related to the topic of Houston, Texas. The article does a good job stay neutral with its views and stays strictly factual with it. They questions I have about the article is why is there not more information and recogntion on Houston-based companies that have aided the expansion of the city? and Also why aren't well-known Houstonians not part of the page for their contribution to the city and nations ? they should be considered in the article for they impact they had. Thank you so suggesting my suggestion and considering my questions.Wcyaopaul (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why do the British pronounce the name like "Hooston"? I see that Sam Houston's ancestors came from Scotland. Is the family name pronounced "Hooston" there? If so, why do Americans say "Hewston"? How did the great Sam pronounce it? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Happy Anniversary

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It's hard to believe that a decade has passed when a small group of editors, including myself, moved this article from good to featured status. I recall the featured reviews were difficult [10], however we persevered [11]. It would be great to hear from the old crew, stop by and say hello. Postoak (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Houston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Houston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Houston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Houston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Texas Southern University Picture

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can you please replace the picture of Texas Southern University (in the education section) with a more flattering one. The campus is beautiful full of picturesque moments.Broadmoor (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Why not also add pictures of Rice and UH? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.32.58.26 (talk) 08:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Houston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Houston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Crime: Homicides

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous version said:
"Houston had 302 homicides in 2016, and is one of three cities (along with Chicago and Baltimore) driving an increase in the nation's overall murder rate. Officials predicted there would be 323 homicides in 2016, which proved to be false." This statement does not match the content of the cited source.

The sentence talks about Houston "driving an increase in the nation's overall murder rate," yet the article cited does not discuss national homicide trends, or even talk about Houston homicides as a ratio. It only offers the totals for 2015 and 2016. If anything, the rate went down in that period, since the totals were stable while the population has increased. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)oldsanfelipe

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Houston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Rice University

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"Several private institutions of higher learning—ranging from liberal arts colleges, such as the University of St. Thomas, Houston's only Catholic university, to Rice University, the nationally recognized Tier One research university—are located within the city. Rice, with a total enrollment of nearly 7,000 students, has a number of distinguished graduate programs and research institutes, such as the James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy.[204][not in citation given]"

I just tagged this edit, but the previous edit failed verification as well. The citation links to an archived version of a 2009 article Rice University, U.S News and World Reports. Instead of finding a new article to support a new campus enrollment figure, at least two editors have supplied different enrollment figures not consistent with the citation. The citation does not support any of the claims in the paragraph.

Other citations in the article fail verification as well. See the History and Crime sections with similar issues, discussed above.Oldsanfelipe (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Houston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Founding date confusion

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This article says the city was founded on August 28, 1836. However, the John Kirby Allen article says Allen announced his candidacy for an election on August 30, began his term on October 3, and only afterwards was the city founded. Meanwhile, the Augustus Chapman Allen article only has a date for the purchase of the land: August 26. Can someone clear this up? Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 16:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

There are many secondary sources which present different accounts of the founding of Houston. People are reading these accounts in good faith, but many of the sources are wrong about this story. But they are often wrong in different ways, and this is finding its way into the Wikipedia. In other cases, the sources are correct, but vague, and then gets paraphrased.
But the "when was the city founded question" is tricky:
  • Does it mean when the land was purchased? August 26, 1836 -or- August 24 (western league) and August 26 (half the eastern league). You could argue that the Houston land deal was the one on the 26th, or you could argue it was the two deals combined, but these occurred on different dates. A league is about 4,428 acres, and a half league is about 2,214 acres. That's where the 6,600 acres (rounded down) and the 6,642 acres come from. The August 24th deal was 4,428 acres for $4,428. The August 26th deal was 2,214 for $5,000: this was the land that the Allen brothers really wanted the most.
  • When the town is first advertised? August 30, 1836
  • When the town is surveyed? Sometime in October 1836, but the survey had serious errors.
  • When it was mapped? January 19, 1836 1837 map still had errors that impacted just a few of the lots.
  • When the first town lot sells? January 1, 1836 1837.
Now the question is: which sources back up these claims and put them into the various articles? See new reply below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsanfelipe (talk • contribs) 19:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I am challenging the following statement and the two sources purported to back it up, "On August 26, 1836, two real estate entrepreneurs from New York, Augustus Chapman Allen and John Kirby Allen, purchased 6,642 acres (26.88 km2) of land along Buffalo Bayou with the intent of founding a city." Please see earlier comments from this thread.

The first inline citation draws from a New York Times article, "Over 21 Miles of Highway, Snapshots of a Resilient Houston." The article includes two claims relating to the Houston's founding:

1. "Allen’s Landing is the site where two New York brothers, Augustus Chapman Allen and John Kirby Allen, stepped ashore on the banks of Buffalo Bayou in 1836 and founded the town. They named it for Sam Houston, the hero of the decisive battle for Texas’s independence from Mexico."

2. "The two events — Harvey’s calamitous rains and the founding of the city — unfolded here on almost the same date, 181 years apart: Aug. 27, 2017, and Aug. 30, 1836."

Both of these make claims about the purported founding date, and one of them asserts an exact founding date, August 30, 1836. Neither make any claims about the manner in which the Allen brothers acquired the property.

The second citation refers to a college newspaper article, "Brief history of Houston." The subtitle reads, "On Aug. 26, Houston celebrated its 164th anniversary -- the day two brothers decided to purchase the land and build a great city." One statement includes claims about the date and terms of the land acquisition, "The sales deal was signed on Aug. 26, 1836. Some sources say the price was $9,428 for 6,642 acres." This is only partly correct. The Allen brothers did buy property on August 26, 1836, and this land included their Houston site. However, the terms of the transaction are wrong. They paid $5,000 for a 2,214 acre tract (see comments in the earlier part of the thread for more detail).

I propose deleting the problematic sentence. There is a credible source on the Houston founding, Houston: A History by David McComb. The Houston founding story can be rewritten according to this and other sources written by professional historians.Oldsanfelipe (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Additions to the "Arts and theater" section.

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

I'd like to propose an addition to the "Arts and theater" section that briefly describes Houston's literary culture. Houston is home to one of the most prestigious creative writing graduate programs, several literary publications, an active poetry reading "scene," and even a mayorally-appointed poet laureate position which published a book titled "Houston's Favorite Poems." Houston's "Inprint Margarett Root Brown Reading Series" is a major stop on book reading tours, and has featured highly esteemed authors such as Sandra Cisneros, Anthony Doerr, Khaled Hosseini, and Salman Rushdie. I think there is sufficient notoriety to include the literary traits of Houston in the culture portion of the article.

I am new to Wikipedia contributions. I am sorry if this is not the proper manner to go about this.

Ja0n8 (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ja0n8:
It seems like you have some detailed information about the Houston literary scene. In addition to the main article on Houston, there is already a separate main article for Houston culture, which already has its own section for literature: Culture of Houston#Literature. I am only a somewhat experienced Wikipedia editor, but I will be happy to address your questions as best I can. cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Good looking out, Oldsanfelipe
I guess I just didn't give the section a thorough look. That's something I'll have to fix before making comments like this in the future. I'll work on pulling together some sources and get a proposed revision to that section up. Ja0n8 (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
There's no apology needed. Helping out other editors builds future capacity. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page.Oldsanfelipe (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I have never used this resource, but there is Wikipedia Teahouse: WP:TH. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
You have my thanks! This looks incredibly helpful. Ja0n8 (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

So, since Culture of Houston#Literature already exists, does that mean that the main Houston page should not contain information about Houston's literary culture? I haven't found any guidelines that dictate the inclusion/exclusion of information across similarly-themed articles. For the moment I will work on editing the literature section of the Culture of Houston article, but I wanted to gauge this community's thoughts on including similar information on the main Houston page. Ja0n8 (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not aware of any style manuals or guidelines which would preclude content about literary culture within an article about a city. Likewise with cross-posting similar information in different articles. The Houston article is long, and it would make sense to keep in mind the total length of the article. Maybe it would make more sense to treat the subject more briefly in the main article and allow for a more extensive treatment in the sub-article.
Adding content to an article does not normally require you to seek consensus: WP:Editing policy. You don't need to be perfect. Mistakes can be fixed. If you have verifiable info with proper citations, go for it. cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Politican party of the Houston mayor

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Recently there have been edits to the infobox for the Houston article noting the political party of the mayor. Since municipal elections in Houston do not allow for political party politics, is it appropriate to label Mayor Sylvester Turner as a Democrat? Oldsanfelipe (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Miles of bike trails

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This statement needs to be checked, updated, and if, appropriate replaced, "Houston has the largest number of bike commuters in Texas with over 160 miles of dedicated bikeways.[249] The city is currently in the process of expanding its on and off street bikeway network." The comparative statement could be very stale already. Cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 22 June 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago18 comments14 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Clear consensus to not move the page (WP:SNOW as well). (non-admin closure) © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 23:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


Houston → Houston, Texas – per policy at WP:USPLACE, all United States populated cities should be titled Placename, State SanAnMan (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose - WP:USPLACE says that naming conventions for US cities "typically" follow the Placename, State format. However the "Comma Convention" also allows for a well-defined set of exceptions, with all but one of these following the AP Stylebook. WP:USPLACE goes on to say, "Cities listed in the AP Stylebook[2] as not requiring the state modifier in newspaper articles have their articles named City unless they are not the primary or only topic for that name.[3] In other cases, this guideline recommends following the "comma convention" as described above.[4]" Houston is on the short list of cities not requiring a state name in the name of the article, according to WP:USPLACE. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@Oldsanfelipe:, the disambig page proves that there is a LONG list of other cities named Houston, so this doesn't seem to fit this exception. - SanAnMan (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Is this your interpretation of WP:USPLACE or an argument for a change in policy? Oldsanfelipe (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
It's how I read WP:USPLACE, from the part you quoted above the article doesn't seem to meet the part about "not the primary or only topic for that name". Since there are multiple other cities named Houston, not to mention the multiple other disambigs of the name itself, I just think that specifying this article to Houston, Texas not only meets WP:USPLACE but also WP:PRECISION. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
The largest other place named "Houston" has a population of 6600. The largest other place named "Houston" in the United States has a population of 3600. Houston has a population over 2 million. That's exactly what is meant by "primary" in the naming convention. Dekimasuよ! 19:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose (strongly at that), doesn't this only apply to small municipalities that aren't very well known or common place names like Springfield? I mean Paris is just Paris, not Paris, France... because it's implied. If it was Paris, Texas, of course. As with Houston — it goes without saying really.Trillfendi (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Gray Matters and the founding story

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

@Lithiumaneurysm: Your edits on the article are great. I would like to raise an issue about a bit of text that you retained.

The lede in the article contains the statement, "Houston was founded by land speculators on August 30, 1836." This has been in the article for awhile and I have challenged it the past. Certainly this is supported by a consensus of secondary sources on the subject, so it is a verifiable claim in the WP sense. However, the citation used refers to a column from the Houston Chronicle which does not repeat this claim. Lisa Gray seems to be ridiculing the notion instead, "Yes: Houston sprang into being as ad copy." She does not endorse the standard story of Houston. The article could use Gray as a source and describe August 30, 1836 as the date of the first newspaper advertisement for Houston. Gray is challenging the old boosterism version of Houston's beginnings. Maybe we should follow her lead. Sincerely, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Oldsanfelipe, excellent points—seems I didn't read the Gray Matters column closely enough. I see the debate over the founding date has been going on for nearly a year now. Perhaps the language should be amended to fit the source—"Houston was first advertised" or "Houston was publicly proclaimed." Or the wording could be obfuscated ("Houston was founded in 1836"). LithiumAneurysm (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Anticipating questions about NPOV, OR, and UNDUE, here are some other sources to draw from, all of which characterize August 30, 1836 as the date of the advertisement without referencing it as the “founding” of Houston:
  • Marilyn McAdams Sibley, The Port of Houston: A History (33), “In August, 1836, the Allens acquired the tract, drew a paper city, and named it for General Sam Houston, then at the peak of his popularity as the wounded hero of San Jacinto.” And “On August 30, only five days after they had acquired the site, they began advertising the city in the Columbia Telegraph and Texas Register and other newspapers, presenting as its first qualification the fact that it was the head of navigation on Buffalo Bayou…” [After the ellipse are quotes from the famous ad.]
  • Sibley (34), “Such promotions were fairly common in the United States and later became so in Texas, but the Allens’ advertisement was the only one of its kind that appeared in the Telegraph during August or for months thereafter.” In all, Sibley devoted five paragraphs to this newspaper advertisement.
  • Louis Aulbach, Buffalo Bayou: An echo of Houston’s Wilderness Beginnings (305–306), “Although an advertisement in the newspaper of August 30, 1836 touted the establishment of the new town of Houston, efforts to clear the pine grove and drain the prairie ponds at the site of the 62 blocks platted in November 1836 by Gail Borden as the new town did not begin until after the First Congress of the Republic had designated the new town of Houston as the capital of the Republic in December, 1836.”
  • David McComb, Houston: A History (9–11) quotes the advertisement in full. He does not characterize August 30, 1836 as the founding date.
  • McComb’s Handbook of Texas article says, “The city began on August 30, 1836, when Augustus Chapman Allen and John Kirby Allen ran an advertisement in the Telegraph and Texas Register for the "Town of Houston."” No use of “founded,” though we might question whether “began” is correct. (It should be noted that this article was modified on February 15, 2017 and I don’t have the text for the previous version. Did McComb rewrite the article himself?)
Sibley and McComb were both history professors. I do not know about Aulbach’s credentials. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 10:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Problems with using Gray Matters as a source

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am wondering if the Gray Matters column at the Houston Chronicle is opinion-commentary. It would be like using a David Brooks or Maureen Dowd column from the New York Times as a source for Wikipedia.

In addition, Gray claims the Allen brothers land deals for Houston totaled 8,850 acres. That corresponds to the approximate acreage of two leagues when they only bought 1.5 leagues, or about 6,642 acres, supported by historian David McComb, for one. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Questions about population, 2014

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Questions about population and land area were raised in 2014: Talk:Houston/Archive_10#Population and [Estimate updates]. The second illustrates an issue shared with many US PLACES articles: an editor changes a population number without updating the citation. Sometimes this is impatience; other times a reflection of the lack of stable URLs at the US Census web sites. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC) Edited once by Oldsanfelipe (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Questions about land area, 2016

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Legitimate question at Talk:Houston/Archive_10#Area was never addressed. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Notable People

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I added in Notable People from Houston, TX. This should highlight some of the creatives and celebs that came from this great city! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCO425 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I removed what you added. It was unsourced and misplaced. ~ GB fan 15:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Quality images?

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There are currently no quality images of Houston at Wikimedia Commons. None have been promoted to valued or featured status. Anyone know of some great images to nominate? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Climate

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"If these rules had been in place earlier, it is estimated that 84% of homes in the 100-year and 500-year floodplains would not have been damaged." This is an opinion which is unattributed in the article cited from The Texas Tribune. This may be a plausible estimate, but there is no reason to think that the writers of the article cited are experts on flooding and they do not attribute this claim to any expert. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Cities or metros?

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

@Labzovsky: One more question about the atmospheric study cited in the climate section: did the study look at the atmosphere over the city limits of Houston, or was the atmosphere of the region studied? Similarly with the concept of megacities, are these municipal populations or metropolitan populations? Thanks, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Oldsanfelipe2: The study looked at the difference between atmospheric conditions over urban area and its background (background was considered as large-scale region near the city without built-up infrastructure). The study analyzed atmosphere and CO2 concentration over all the largest cities worldwide (cities with > 500 km^2 area) including Houston. Each city was defined not based on population (i.e. inventory statistics) but based on satellite remote sensing of surface (based on MODIS observations). Therefore, a city in this manuscript refers to an extended area of built-up surface with more than 500 km squared area. If several cities are connected by their built-up areas, this kind of conurbation was considered as one city/metro and referred using the largest city's administrative name or by listing all cities using "\" slash. In case of Houston (and most U.S. cities) we can say that metro areas are analyzed since both urban and suburban spaces are included in the analysis. The label megacity was given to each urban area based on inventory statistics about population count (statistics are taken from ne_10_m_populated areas file from Natural Earth data project).Labzovsky (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Labzovsky:Metros, got it. Thanks for the explanation. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 05:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Counties

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Montgomery County is not in Houston. I'm unsure where this comes from, but I'm a process server in Montgomery County. 76.164.86.119 (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)AnneofGreen

A small portion of Houston extends into Montgomery County (up 69 near Northpark). It's not saying that all of Montgomery is in Houston. Kuru (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Houston annexed Kingwood, Texas and part of Kingwood is in Montgomery County. There is also a small sliver of Houston in Fort Bend, County. Houston occupies a little over a third of Harris County. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Cynthia D. Ritchie

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings,

Wikipedia has an article Cynthia D. Ritchie, you are requested to update, expand, copy edit the article. Also you can help the same by adding the article to your watch list.

Bookku (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

"Houston, Texas (redir)" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Houston, Texas (redir). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 30#Houston, Texas (redir) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

City Auditorium

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If anybody is looking for a good article to create that is related to Houston, the City Auditorium in Houston, located at 615 Louisiana, was a major sports and theatrical venue in the city from 1910 until 1962. Hope this inspires someone.4meter4 (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Toll road tags

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What toll tag does Houston Tx use for toll roads 2600:1002:B01E:2C7F:1475:891F:8707:710F (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Order of images in the infobox

Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Dear all, Over the past fortnight, there has been a rather cantankerous dispute over the order of the images in this infobox. As such, i've made one final change to put it in an order I feel not only combines the centers together and the monuments together, but which also puts precedence on houston's identity as space city.

Before reverting, kindly engage in a discussion here. Thank you! Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 09:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Becausewhynothuh?: (here from AN/I) I'm glad to see you started this section. However, you're slow-motion edit-warring against multiple editors. I see Cerebral726 reverting on July 26 to the same pre-existing montage format that Chronus just restored, with the edit summary Returning to status quo. I believe it makes more sense to have outdoor vistas grouped and landmark institutions grouped. If you disagree, per WP:BRD, feel free to start a discussion and do not edit war. That's an equally valid reason to the one you just provided. It appears you are the one instituting a change; your version of the montage is not the status quo and the other editors are not simply stonewalling, the onus is on you to persuade others. If necessary, start an RfC to get wider participation. In particular, it is rarely appropriate to demand that editors discuss before reverting your change, and since it is a change, you cannot demand everyone discuss it before undoing it. Pending discussion, I'm about to undo your last revert of Chronus. That said, Chronus, what's your reasoning: why do you consider the original order of the images to be better? Yngvadottir (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
@Yngvadottir Thank you for your intervention. I think it's much more visually pleasing for a panoramic image to end the photo montage. But really, the bottom line is that this editor needs to respect the status quo and stop running edit wars. This behavior has been consistent and needs to be stopped. The blockades already applied, apparently, had no result. Chronus (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
While the blocked user's behavior is pretty poor conduct, I do agree wtih Chronus and the blocked user that the panoramic should end the infobox instead of the two images. It seems to have been a recent dispute so I won't edit the page unless the other editors of this page agree. —JJBers 16:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Non-constructive personal attacks from a now banned editor
@Yngvadottir Thanks for finally contributing to this talk page. I was just waiting for someone to finally engage in a dialogue unlike this editor @Chronus who has a bad reputation for making unilateral edits constantly. Guy is unable to understand simple requests. All he needed to do was reply here but instead he's busy complaining to the administrators about made up claims of 'disruptive editing'. My only request was for people to reply here and engage like other editors have on several other articles.
My point is that I made an edit a fortnight ago, even opened a discussion page, and was more than glad to discuss this out, but the fact no changes were made for such a long period of time made my edit the status quo by virtue of longevity. I have no qualm against Cerebrals groupings and thus I have made a new edit which keeps his grouping whilst changing the location. How does that look @Yngvadottir Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 07:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
@Becausewhynothuh? What part of the sentence "your version of the montage is not the status quo" did you not understand? And since when is 15 days a "long period" that characterizes status quo? Please indicate the regulation of the Wikipedia that determines this period of time. Furthermore, Cerebral726 has never indicated that he agrees with the image order proposed by you. In addition, immediately stop violating basic civility policies, such as WP:PA and WP:ASPERSIONS ("bad reputation" and "unable to understand simple requests"). @Yngvadottir Can you do something about this editor's disruptive behavior? Chronus (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't know man, your talk page highlights YOUR disruptive behaviour very well. And do you have any other charade than constantly complaining to the administrators about perceived slights? Like calm down buddy. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 08:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
@Becausewhynothuh? If your "slights" of the rules I'm complaining about were really "charades", you wouldn't have been blocked twice in the last few weeks. That said, I don't think you're in a position of judging the talk page of any other editor of this project. Finally, I'm not your "buddy" and if there's anyone who needs to "calm down" here, it's you. Chronus (talk) 08:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Nah buddy, it's most definitely you. Your entire talk page consists of you refusing to co-operate with anyone else. I, on the other hand have constantly shown openness to discussing things through. You have done no such thing and you refuse to do so here as well. Calm down and focus on the topic at hand instead of constantly focusing on the editor. Try to not antagonize others so much when they're willing to bend over backwards to accomodate your demands @Chronus. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
@Becausewhynothuh? You should apply what it says to your own behavior. If you really wanted to "focus" on the topic of this discussion, you would not have started your participation in this debate with attacks on me. By the way, those who really want to "accommodate demands" don't promote edit wars like you are doing in this article right now. Chronus (talk) 08:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Not gonna bother reading any of that. This isn't the space for it + no point going in circles with you.
You wanna contribute to the article or nah? Maybe you wanna help make this article featured class again? or you have anything of substance to add to this discussion? awaiting your reply Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Evaluation/Suggestions

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey! This article has a great balance of content. The result of editing the organization/format of the pictures turned out good too. There is good sourcing and a clear structure throughout the article, however certain graphs and diagrams will need updating to keep this article "reliable" and up-to-date. Ctrlxem (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Indigenous people

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Prehistoric settlers are not part of Houston's history because they predate the city by hundreds of years. It's not even fathomable that they would be included on the Wikipedia page for a 20/21st century city. Also, next time you want to make a comment, do so on my Talk page so I see it. You're a bad and biased Wikipedia editor. Wikiphobia4 (talk) 04:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Topic should be discussed here. Edit summary is pretty standard when undoing an edit. No need to go to user talk page.

〜 Adflatuss • talk 04:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly fathomable. It's even common practice to briefly annotate the historical usage and prior occupation of the region. You can see this at all major Texas cities (San Antonio, Dallas, Austin, Texas, El Paso, Texas), US cities (New York City, Chicago), and world cities (Paris, London, Istanbul). I'm not clear how this introduces a bias, as you claim, but I'm sure I'm missing some kind of political point. Sam Kuru (talk) 10:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Why are you recognizing prehistoric settlers who have no affect or consequence on the City of Houston, though? That just doesn't make sense. You're trying to make a point that colonization by Europeans is negative and that these prehistoric civilizations have the right to their land. Take a moment to reflect on who you are as a person. Cheers, Wikiphobia4 (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
The text makes no such point. If you draw that conclusion, that is fine for you to believe, but the text, as it stands, is neutral. It simply states who lived there, what happened to them, and when people were around. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Enclaved cities

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is there any way to make enclaves on this map for all the places that are enclaved within Houston? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Anti food sharing ordinance

Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I've readded prose about the city ban on sharing food. This time I've included six sources, including the nyt, the guardian, and Reuters. Previously this was removed as "trivial" despite being considered newsworthy by, well, do a search yourself... hundreds of news organizations of all sizes and stripes. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Magnolia677: as they deleted the sourced content and are the most likely to want to come here and discuss these sources. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Houston/Archive_10&oldid=1259542654"