Talk:Houston/Archive 4

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lengthlengthlengthlength 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tallest buildings in Texas 

message: 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)
replies: text: * 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: * Support (my move request).  --Serge 18:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: *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)
thread_title: Oppose

message: (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)
thread_title: Removed "Historically..."

message: I removed the image of the Astrodome (250px|left|thumb|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)
thread_title: Astrodome Image

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Survey on proposal to make U.S. city naming guidelines consistent with others countries

message: 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)
thread_title: Incorrect density

message: 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)
thread_title: Disputed: Homicide averages in 1980s

message: Found source for claim of Murder Capital (though comparisons to other cities are not given) .  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)
thread_title: More crime stuff

message: 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)
thread_title:  Image review 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks, but the user boxes already exist. Postoak 00:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did not know! would have been less work form me, but, ok. --'•Tbone55•(Talk) (Contribs)(UBX) 02:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Houston User Boxes  

message: Please see proposal December 27, 2006/Featured article nomination at Wikipedia:WikiProject Houston/Administration. Thank you, Postoak 20:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone provide a better image for the Demographics section? Thanks! —RJN 23:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Houston participants - FA nomination