Talk:Houston/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Lengthlengthlengthlength

This article is far too long, over twice the recommended length. Even the New York City article is 8kb shorter than this. This negatively affects readability and really needs to be trimmed. If there are long sections that should be kept, they get their own articles. A few suggestions on reducing length:

• Shorten history. Somehow 150 years of history of Houston are covered in twice the length of 400 years of history in New York.
• Architecture should be split off into its own article. Oh wait. It is. Fixed.
• Trim down transportation since the article that was split off for it is identical to what appears there.

--Loodog 03:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, it seems the entire article has been mirrored in the form of each section being split off onto its own page, while leaving everything also on this page. This defeats the point of splitting off a section into an article.--Loodog 03:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I checked a few comparable city articles for size. Houston at (58K) is less than Boston(65K), Detroit(84K) and San Francisco(88K). All three are featured articles. Also, we have New York City(58K), Chicago(73K) and Los Angeles(62K). Postoak 01:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Tallest buildings in Texas

I created the Tallest buildings in Texas article quite a while ago hoping someone from Houston would find it and fill in the blank spots. I'm assuming the blank spots belong to Houston.. some might be San Antonio's, or at least, farther down the list. Any help would be appreciated.

Also, if anyone is interested, I've started WikiProject Dallas to organize work on City of Dallas articles. drumguy8800 C T 14:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

2004 Presidential Election Results for Houston

Does anyone know where to find a source to back up the claim that Kerry won the city of Houston? I've posted on this talk page as well, with no response so far. The claim sounds reasonable, but it still needs a source. Otherwise, I'm afraid it will have to be deleted from this article. Thanks. Ufwuct 16:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I searched but could not find any source for this, only the returns at the county level. I'd get rid of it and the unsourced tag. Thanks Postoak 01:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing this text (both sentences) as first sentence cannot be properly sourced.

In presidential elections, Democrats tend to have the edge, with Democratic candidate John Kerry having won the city of Houston in 2004, while George W. Bush carried Harris County and the other surrounding counties in the Houston area.

Ufwuct 15:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus. While, personally, I favor the proposal, this really comes close to WP:POINT. If LA didn't pass, Houston et al. certainly won't . This becomes a waste of time for all of us, and I urge the discussion to be continued at WP:NC or wherever, to reach a global consensus. Future polls of this nature might be closed per WP:SNOW. Duja 07:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

---

1. Houston, Texas → Houston
2. San Antonio, Texas → San Antonio
3. Dallas, Texas → Dallas

Like Chicago, New York City, and Philadelphia, the three largest and most famous cities in Texas certainly don't need to be disambiguated by state, and using the city name only (without , Texas) in each is consistent with WP:NC(CN), and consistent with the Wikipedia convention used for almost all other large cities in the world. In each case, the name alone page redirects to the city article, so there are no ambiguity issues. Serge 18:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Please vote on whether to support or oppose all three moves. Add  * '''Support'''   or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Support

• Support (my move request). --Serge 18:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Support Houston and Dallas are two of the largest cities in the U.S., and very well known internationally. The two sections should definately be located at Houston and Dallas respectively. But for San Antonio, I'm not as sure about its international fame, so only Support for San Antonio, not strong like Dallas and Houston. Wirbelwind 18:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note that San Antonio is the 7th largest city in the U.S., and is world famous for the Battle of the Alamo. --Serge 18:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes but simply because it is the 7th largest city doesn't automatically make it world famous. And the Alamo is more known in the U.S. And IIRC, Dallas was more populated than San Antonio for a long time till not too long ago. For example, Ankara has 3.5 million people, almost 3 times more than San Antonio. Do you know where Ankara is? I didn't till two minutes ago. Kinshasa has 4.38 million, more than Ankara. Do you know where that is? My point is, just because a city has people doesn't make it well known around the world. Wirbelwind 22:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. But the reasons specified for the move in this request do not rely on these cities being world famous. --Serge 03:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it does suggest possible problems in the future, when more people want articles of cities to have the same format, i.e. where should the line be drawn? World famous cities have that argument, but San Antonio does not really. And that's all I meant. --Wirbelwind 01:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The line can be drawn where it is drawn for the vast majority of Wikipedia articles, including articles about cities in other countries: where disambiguation is needed to resolve an ambiguity issue (otherwise, don't disambiguate; use just the most common name). Simple. Clear. Consistent. --Serge 02:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support for Houston and Dallas. I had never heard about any others until Wikipedia. I had however heard of another San Antonio, so just a regular Support for it. all. Never mind. Serge makes a good point. Tennis Dynamite 20:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Brownings 21:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support. These cities are known globally and do not need the statename.--- Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} My "Great Project"
• Support, Houston and Dallas based on gamma world city status. Postoak 01:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This proves my point for my vote above. Wirbelwind 02:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, like I supported Los Angeles... Bssc81 01:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC) If Los Angeles can't even be moved, I don't see why these should be. It makes little sense to do so (which is why I find it appalling that Philadelphia and Chicago were moved if people were just going to vote down LA.)
• Strong Support Houston and Dallas. Weak Support San Antonio, which is considerably smaller (as a metro area) and less famous. I don't think there's serious ambiguity issues in any case, though, so no reason to oppose. john k 02:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support for Houston and Dallas, neutral on San Antonio. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support --JFreeman ^(talk) 15:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support -- All three cities are listed by the AP Style Book as cities that can stand alone when used in datelines and in the text. Plus, the unqualified names for all three already redirect to the city articles so primary topic usage has been established. --Polaron | Talk 16:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support all three. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 08:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Dallas and Houston; as World cities, I feel they merit an exemption from the City name, State name standard. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support --DaveOinSF 00:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support all three, although I suggest looking at the AP Stylebook suggestion on the convention talk page. -- tariqabjotu 04:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

• Strong oppose. If we want to change every city then we should seek to change the naming convention. There is nothing wrong with the current name. -Will Beback 20:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  I believe you are confusing the document guideline with the convention that it supposedly reflects. Arguably, there never was a true natural consensus for using the comma format on city articles that did not have ambiguity issues. An artificial convention was established through the use of a bot on thousands of U.S. city articles. Since the documented guidelines reflect actual current usage, the only way to "change the convention" is in article space, like this move. --Serge 16:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. —  AjaxSmack  06:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per Will Beback. Vegaswikian 07:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Will Beback. Gene Nygaard 01:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose to follow convention and keep it simple. Bubba ditto 22:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Opppose per above comments and my comments at similar discussions. --musicpvm 15:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - not good enough reason to move all three. Krugs 15:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose San Antonio, as it is not a World city --Kralizec! (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per Will Beback and per the persistent attempts at Seattle as well as the previous failed attempts at Boston, New Orleans, San Francisco, etc. The band aid patch attempt of constantly creating exceptions is counter productive. Plus there is no practical reason for the change since redirects work fine. And finally, there are ambiguity issues for all cities as evident by the lengthy disambig pages for all three. Houston (disambiguation), Dallas (disambiguation), and San Antonio (disambiguation). Agne 00:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  The "redirects work fine" rationale is not a rationale - a page can only be at one place, and we should put it at the best place. Whether redirects work fine oughtn't to come into it. john k 03:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  A consistent argument for these page moves was that th most "Common name" should be the article title for ease of finding in a search engine. Well, the practical use of redirects nullify that argument. So now what reason is there for the move? Agne 06:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  What about the even lengthier London (disambiguation) page? And yet London is at London. Like with some of the arguments mentioned on Talk:Los Angeles, this issue is not unique to these three articles. Just a thought. -- tariqabjotu 03:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  Well, different naming convention. Which is a different problem. If London was covered by the US convention, then we might be debating if the dab should be at that name space. Vegaswikian 06:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  And I would support London being moved London, United Kingdom for just that reason. Agne 06:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per Agne and Will Beback. Adding three more "exceptions" is the wrong solution, and does nothing but render the naming guideline essentially useless. If there is disagreement with the guideline, debate should be (and has been) there. As I said in the failed attempts listed above, exceptions should be for exceptional cases. I see nothing in any of these three that qualify for execptional cases. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 00:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - change the convention at WP:NC (settlements), then come back here. --Bobblehead 01:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Will Beback. AJD 01:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose (procedural) per Will Beback. But I will support a change through WP:NC:CITY amongst a group nomination. Tinlinkin 04:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose It is my opinion that ALL city articles (and not just the US) should be city, state/province format (i.e. Toronto would be Toronto, Ontario) and will support any change in the policy to support this. TJ Spyke 06:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. per Will Beback and others. ^BlankVerse 13:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose per Agne, Will B, and others. Since different disambiguation issues exist for all three, page moves for cities should never be lumped like this. Jonathunder 13:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Will, whether every city is to be changed is a separate issue. The issue here is whether these three city articles are to be changed. All Wikipedia naming conventions are established, changed and evolved at the individual article level. They are documented as guidelines -- that allow for exceptions -- that reflect the conventions, not the other way around. The only way to change a naming convention is to, well, change names contrary to the convention! Conventions aren't determined by voting - they are determined by consensus in behavior, particularly by decisions made at the individual article level. --Serge 21:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Why should Dallas be treated differently from Fort Worth, or from Odessa? It is helpful for a reference work to use consistent naming. The U.S. has well-defined city and state governments, and it also has many community names which are used repeatedly. It makes sense to have a consistent treatment of U.S. communities, as it helps editors and readers. -Will Beback 21:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• For now, this survey will determine if there is consensus to move the three biggest cities; Fort Worth is 5th largest. Odessa is an example of a city that requires disambiguation. To be consistent with general Wikipedia disambiguation conventions, I think it should be at [[Odessa (Texas)]] or [[Odessa (city in Texas)]], but that's a separate issue. --Serge 21:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• So you don't see any benefit in having consistent naming for Texas cities? Why are the three biggest special? Why not the ten bigggest or the hundred biggest? What's the point of chaning these three cities alone? -Will Beback 22:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• He seems to be doing this one step at a time.Tennis Dynamite 22:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed, in an evolutionary system like Wikipedia, change necessarily happens one step at a time. Some steps are little, some are big, and the frequency with which they are taken may vary, but there is no god controlling or directing the overall process. My choice of the top 3, for now anyway, was somewhat arbitrary. It's a manageable number, and more efficient than voting on each one separately. As to the value of consistent naming for Texas cities, no I don't see much value in that, when they are named inconsistent with WP:NC(CN). If I had to choose between some being consistent with WP:NC(CN) vs. none being consistent with WP:NC(CN), I would choose some, because some is better than none, even if some means Texas cities will be named inconsistently with respect to each other. It's an evolutionary step in the right direction - greater naming convention consistency within Wikipedia overall. Will, maybe that's the difference between you and me: my main concern is consistency in the Wikipedia forest overall, and you're mostly concerned about consistency between the individual trees in the local woods? --Serge 22:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

But to argue, why should Chicago and Philadelphia not be "Chicago, Illinois" and "Philadelphia, Pennsylvania"? Why does it stop there? Or even New York City, New York, even if the state name is already in the city name, and "City" is part of the name? Wirbelwind 22:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Are you asking me? Chicago and Philadelphia should not be "Chicago, Illinois" and "Philadelphia, Pennsylvania", because that would contradict Wikipedia consensus, and also because it would not be consistent with WP:NC(CN), which is the primary guiding naming principle for almost all Wikipedia articles (use the name most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article). By the way, "City" is not part of the official name of New York City, that's just how it is best known. Hence, that's why the article name is New York City and not New York, New York or New York. Does that make sense? --Serge 23:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, I was replying to Will's argument at why stop at 3 cities. Wirbelwind 23:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

At a guess, Will does think Chicago and Philadelphia should be moved back (he voted against the latter move, at least, and possibly against the former, although I'm less certain). He seems to have even expressed some affection for moving New York City back to New York, New York. He may have stated, even further, over at Talk:Los Angeles, California, that the naming conventions for all cities should be modelled on the US convention (thus presumably forcing us to have articles like Munich, Bavaria; Florence, Tuscany; and Barcelona, Catalonia - or possibly the dreaded Munich, Germany; Florence, Italy; and Barcelona, Spain - although I'm not certain this was a serious comment). So probably your rhetorical question would not meet the response you expected. john k 02:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Something interesting: Wikipedia is the only encyclopedia I know of that has its U.S. cities at [[City, State]]. World Book, Encyclopæedia Britannica, and all the others that I know of put cities like Dallas, Houston, and Los Angeles just at [{City]]. --- Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} My "Great Project"

This vote is currently 14-12 in favor of the page move. --- Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} My "Great Project"

Note that one of the oppose comments is only in regards to San Antonio... not that it makes a significant difference. -- tariqabjotu 04:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

To all interested parties, I have made a proposal that we change the guidelines so that 27 of the 30 cities that the AP Style Book says to use without the state in datelines should do so in their wikipedia article title as well, over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements). I hope anyone interested in this issue will head over there and express their opinion. john k 03:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removed "Historically..."

(Cut off while doing my edit summary): I removed a paragraph from the Economy section because it was duplicated elsewhere (in History section and Demographics section). Ufwuct 16:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Astrodome Image

I removed the image of the Astrodome ([[Image:Picture_of_Reliant_Astrodome.JPG|250px|left|thumb|[[Reliant Astrodome|The Astrodome]]]]) for space and formatting reasons. We do have enough images in this article. As we cut down on article size (but reducing unnecessary text), we may need to remove 1 or 2 more. Perhaps this image would fit well under History of Houston, Culture of Houston, or Architecture of Houston. Ufwuct 17:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey on proposal to make U.S. city naming guidelines consistent with others countries

There is a survey in progress at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) to determine if there is consensus on a proposed change to the U.S. city naming conventions to be consistent with other countries, in particular Canada. --Serge 05:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

However the proposal would allow U.S. cities to be inconsistent with the vast majority of other U.S. cities and towns, which (with a few exceptions) all use the "city, state" convention. -Will Beback 23:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect density

I can't figure out how to correct the density numbers in the right sidebar, which are clearly wrong by about half. Divide the population number by land area in the same sidebar and get about 3,480/sq.mile or 1,343/sq.km. Can somebody please fix this? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.25.2.144 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 27 November 2006.

Thanks for catching the error. I have made the corrections. It looks like the population was divided by the area in km² (but incorrectly using the total area instead of the land area, as population density suggests), which was then plugged into the spot for pop./mi². That incorrect number was then converted to pop./km². I think the previous editor might have been confused by the backwards (metric first, then imperial) units, which I don't know how to fix without making a new, separate infobox for U.S. cities. Anyway, thanks for the catch. Ufwuct 15:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Disputed: Homicide averages in 1980s

The text read:

At one time Houston was the murder capital of the United States in 1982 when it recorded 702 homicides. In years since, the city had at least an average of 600-plus murders throughout the 1980s, ...

At the this database (also used as a ref in the article), there are the following homicide numbers collected by the HPD:

1985: 457

1986: 408

1987: 323

1988: 440

1989: 459

To average 600 murders for the decade of the 1980s, you need a total of 6000. 6000-702-457-408-323-440-459 = 3211. The remaining 4 years (1980, 1981, 1983, and 1984) must average 802.75 per year. However, this does not follow the trend. Plus, the population of Houston was smaller in the 1980s, so this is even less likely. Plus, we already know that the peak year was 1991, with 608 (and it was pretty much the peak nationwide. Deleting both dubious claims. Ufwuct 21:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Murder ranking ref

This and this source are not the easiest-to-verify sources, but they back up the claim (see Houston, Texas#Crime). On the list, the 17 cities with populations above 250,000 that had a higher murder rate than Houston in 2005 were:

• Baltimore
• Detroit
• St. Louis
• Washington D.C.
• Newark
• Kansas City, MO
• Philadelphia
• Cincinnati
• Cleveland
• Oakland
• Atlanta
• Milwaukee
• Memphis
• Buffalo
• Pittsburgh
• Nashville
• Dallas

More crime stuff

Found source for claim of Murder Capital (though comparisons to other cities are not given) [1]. 701 in 1981. Still, this is 25 years ago. I don't think this is particularly relevant now, given the ups and downs since then. Ufwuct 22:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Image review

This image review is part of WikiProject Houston, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to the city of Houston. The following images may have problems with tagging, licensing, or adherence to WP:FUC.

• Image:HoustoninTexas.PNG - no clear source, image is on commons
• Image:MainStreetHouston1864.jpg - no clear source
• Image:Houston streets 1942.jpg - no clear source
• Image:Mayorwhite2004.jpg - no license, may fail WP:FUC
• Image:HarrisCountyCourthouse.jpg - may fail WP:FUC, should be easily replaceable, probably could get a better picture even
• Image:BayouPlaceHouston.jpg - may fail WP:FUC
• Image:Houston freeway 002.jpg - may fail WP:FUC
• Image:Bush Intercontinental Airport.jpg - may fail WP:FUC
• Image:UH skyline.JPG - may fail WP:FUC

cohesion 21:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Architecture section

The skyscrapers found in Houston are not so defining to the city so as to necessitate three paragraphs in the main article.

For analogous reasons no other major city has an architecture section in the article (least of all a lengthy one like this has), though many have links to their own "architecture of {city}" articles. I tried to do that here, but was reverted because the section and the split off article weren't the same. I propose to put all of the information in the split off article and remove it completely from this one. I really don't think there's any space for a dicussion of something that already should have been subsumed into the "Cityscape" section as with every other city.--Loodog 19:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, the paragraphs are appropriate to the article. Skyscrapers are mentioned, but I think the focus is the notable change of the CBD and birth of an edge city in a span of appox 15. years. Very unique to Houston. Also, each city article handles the Cityscape/Architecture/Notable buildings, etc. sections differently. I dont see any hard and fast rules here. Article length is not an issue. Postoak 20:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't a matter of length. I just saw it as being a somewhat impertinent thing to dedicate so much of the page to; however, I now see your point about its historical context. I'd still like to merge it into the cityscape section since that's what I think of "Cityscape" as being.--Loodog 00:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Where, then, does architecture belong within a city's article? Deatonjr 16:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Houston User Boxes

I have created User Boxes (all though there are other) that you can use.

Here is the link: Here I am always working on more.

also the link is on my sig under "UBX"

--'•Tbone55•^{(Talk) (Contribs)(UBX)} 16:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but the user boxes already exist. Postoak 00:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Did not know! would have been less work form me, but, ok. --'•Tbone55•^{(Talk) (Contribs)(UBX)} 02:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Houston participants - FA nomination

Please see proposal December 27, 2006/Featured article nomination at Wikipedia:WikiProject Houston/Administration. Thank you, Postoak 20:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone provide a better image for the Demographics section? Thanks! —RJN 23:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)