![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Any objections to adding "screwston" to the list of nicknames? I mean, it has as much legitimacy as "H-town"... AFAIK both came from hip-hop. 67.180.27.77 23:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)TriniTriggs
I understand that it's not intended to be offensive, but it would be perceived so by many casual web surfers. If it is included, it should have an explanation following it. That's a bit much for an infobox. I would say leave it out of the infobox, but put it in the body of the article with an explanation of its origin. Rockhopper10r 01:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I have never heard of this either. In my opinion, we should only stick with "Space City" and "Bayou City". Adding "H-Town" in there wasn't appropriate either. I or any of the people I encountered don't refer to Houston as "H-Town". "H-Town" is slang and is not even American English. It is only used by a certain subgroup/subculture in their music or rather, trash talk. I am going to remove "H-Town" since the general or civilized population do not refer to Houston as that, therefore it is not legitimate. We shouldn't have street talk/slang languages or phrases in an encylopedia. RJN 01:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I've heard Screwston and the "City of Screw" used many times. Like TriniTriggs said, it stems from the "screwed" music. But naturally even if there's no derogatory connection, you're not going to hear it used in as many contexts. (What news anchor would dare?) Additionally, I doubt it's the type of thing most Wikipedia editors would stumble across (sorry for generalizing). This doesn't make it any less of a nickname though. I vote for it. 67.10.252.128 07:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Houston is no longer the "fattest city" according to Men's Fitness magazine. I feel that we should remove the 2005 ranking and the doughnut comments and replace with something more appropriate. Do we even want to update with the 2006 ranking? Postoak 01:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Postoak removed the section
Why? It's well sourced and it's one of Houston's main claim to fame. There have even been documentaries made on the subject. // Liftarn
Since it's written in the past tense I don't see the problem. Should all historic material be purged? I don't think so. I also notice you're attempting to use guild by association rather than providing sources. // Liftarn
I made a Houston userbox. It is at {{User Houston}}. I used Chicago's template to make it. :) WhisperToMe 02:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
This article reads like a brochure from the Houston chamber of commerce: "Known for the vibrancy of its visual and performing arts, Houston's Theater District is ranked second in the country in the number of theatre seats in a concentrated downtown area per capita and has world-class visual arts... The city is also close to sunny beaches as well as one of the United States' largest concentrations of pleasure boats and tourist attractions... Houston has much to offer, including the lowest cost of living and the least-expensive housing among 27 major U.S. metropolitan areas with populations of more than 1.7 million." If you didn't catch it the first time: "Houston is widely recognized as the nation's third most important city for contemporary visual arts..." More effusive adjectives: "renowned", "world powerhouse", "vibrancy", "international". The Texas Medical Center is "internationally-renowened" and the skyline is "the third largest in the country". Even the freeways are "heavily traveled," not congested. It turns out highway construction and gridlock aren't quality of life problems like in other cities, but exist "to meet the demands of continuing growth." This isn't informative, this is relentless boosterism. Mfk91 06:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The phrase "Houston is widely recognized as the nation's third most important city for contemporary visual arts..." is not anywhere in the article—you made this one up. How is the phrase "The city also has the third largest skyline in the country (after New York City and Chicago)..." read like a brochure? This statement is a fact, not an opinion, so I don't know why you are disputing it.
Houston is well known for its visual and performing arts. Have you ever been to Houston? The information regarding the Theater District ranking second of theater seats in a concentrated downtown area came from the Houston Theater District website, not the Chamber of Commerce. The information is also a fact, not an opinion or a guess.
This article has been through a lot for it to be what it is today. I have been actively involved in editing this article since May 17, 2005 in hoping one day it will be a featured article. By "being through a lot," I meant that this article has been edited and copyedited by many people—a lot of information were added/revised/re-written. This article went under a major copyedit by Katefan0 last summer and she had done a great job rewording the majority of the text for style, grammar, and for NPOV. Later on last fall, Katefan0 had another copyedit session of this article. After all this, I don't see how this article could be written by the Chamber of Commerce or sounded like it came from one since it has been edited/copyedited so many times.
Houston is close the beaches with a short travel to Galveston Island. Again, this is a fact, not an opinion. Downtown Houston is about 40 miles or so away from Galveston Island, etc. Why would this sound like it came from the Chamber of Commerce? On the southeast side of Houston, there are many tourist attractions such as the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (where Mission Control is located), NASA, Kemah Boardwalk, Clear Lake, etc. Pleasure boats are found on this side of town. How are these facts boosterism? Shouldn't the truth be told about certain attractions that this area has to offer?
It is possible that other websites online copied information from here—it is very common for this to happen. I have found a lot of websites that copied and pasted articles from Wikipedia to their website. Can you tell me where you found this information to be from the Chamber of Commerce? There is also no such thing as the "Houston Chamber of Commerce" as I searched Google. There happen to be many Chamber of Commerce in the Houston area by geographic area, but not a "Houston Chamber of Commerce." I looked up some of the Houston area Chamber of Commerce websites by area and I did not find any information that is similar to information here in the Houston article. So can you give me some proof that this was written by the "Houston Chamber of Commerce" (as there is no such thing as one) and provide a website to this "Houston Chamber of Commerce." If not, I will remove the POV-section templates and do some re-writting/re-wording when time permits. I would like to know what brochure has information from this article. If you have time, you should study the edit history from the summer time to see that phrases of this article has been edited and copyedited many times—there is no way it can be from the "Houston Chamber of Commerce" (doesn't exist) as you claimed.
Regarding the "Transportation" section (freeways and how they are "heavily travelled," etc.), I don't have a comment for it because I really haven't mess with that section ever since I edited this article from May 17, 2005 to present. Maybe other editors such as WhisperToMe, Katefan0, Urban909, SaltyKid, and Rangerdude could comment on it—they contributed and made copyedits to this section since I have been here from what I can recall.
Regards,
RJN 10:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
" It is not a dispassionate encylopedia article. All this gushing about pleasure boats and renowned attractions is of course grounded in factually correct information. So too would be an article singing the virtues of chocolate, citing statistics of its enduring popularity through the ages, scientific studies demonsrating that it releases pleasure hormones, and so on. Perhaps it would be factually accurate, but it would obviously not be telling the whole story. What about health effects? Cholesterol? Labor conditions on third-world coccoa plantations? Covering the subject"
Urban spawl? City known for air and ozone pollution? A sometimes unbearably hot climate? Check. WhisperToMe 02:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
RJN I am going to weigh in on this one, though I have not lived in Houston since 1983. However, I am a graduate of San Jacinto College, and the University of Houston, worked for the city, and lived there almost a decade. Even at that point, the vibrancy of the city's artistic community was astonishing. I have also lived in New York, and Houston had an artistic community and unique cross-culture lifestyle that matched anywhere I had ever lived, including the Big Apple. I don't think this article is an advertisement for the chamber of commerce, sorry, it is just an accurate reflection of what I saw when I lived, went to school, and worked there, from 1975 to 1983. I have since returned several times, and the City is more alive than ever. Houston matches up favorably, in my opinion as someone who lived there, with any city in the WORLD for it's artistic community, lifestyle, and just the way the varied cultures managed to (generally) blend successfully. old windy bear 13:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
-- It's really inaccurate for this article to claim that Houston is the second most important in terms of theater. This business of "concentrated seats within a downtown area per capita" is completely preposterous, even if it happens to be true. Lots of cities could find similarly convoluted ways of claiming to be first (or second) in almost anything. Chicago, Boston, and LA all have much more influential theater districts than Houston, and often have preview runs of Broadway shows before they hit NY. I've never even heard of a major show making a first-run stop in Houston. -- Jleon 14:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Jleon I understand your point - but the seats issue is simply one statistic to measure theatrical influence and importance. Does anyone have how many major shows hit each city? Per capita dollars spent at each? I would be curious to see those figures and would wager Houston would do fairly well. All kidding aside, I lived in LA and NY, prior to living in Houston and Houston was far and away the most uniquely crosscultured of the three, though NY was close. LA is way overrated when you get outside of Holywood, and culturely segregated to a far greater degree than Houston. As to first stops, they are usually almost always on Broadway, or, if produced in LA, there. But I would rather see another criteria used to measure theater district influence, personally. old windy bear 22:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Jleon is right. Anyone can come up with a slick statistic like 'concentrated seats in a downtown area per capita'. The point of Wikipedia is to use solid information, not iffy factoids. old windy bear, it's wonderful you feel such pride for Houston. Some people love it and some people hate it. Best to leave personal preference out of it. With something as subjective as a 'cultural scene' it seems best to describe it using reasonable parameters. This is admittedly difficult to do. What's the best criteria: Dollars spent on tickets? Audience attendance? Number of art galleries? You could criticize each one of these. If you stick more with generalities, grounded in some factual basis, you avoid pitfalls like suggesting a place is 'the second most important in the nation' etc. Also, regarding Broadway tours: Chicago, Boston, and LA (but especially Boston) are the traditional locations for first runs, often even before NYC. This is because they have well-established show biz infrastructure, strong theater scenes, and influence with media and theater critics, but aren't nearly as expensive as NYC. Hate to say it, but Houston just isn't part of that picture, and nor is Las Vegas despite the major show biz industry there. But the bigger point is that theater in general may not be the best single metric to describe a 'cultural scene.' Mfk91 00:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Mfk91 Don't pass out from shock, but I agree with you that slick statistics and personal preferences should not weigh as criteria in an encyclopedia article. What I was trying to say - and I think you would agree with me, is that there ought to be some other gauges as to the cultural vitality of a city other than the opening of shows, or ANY single event or (I like your phrase and warn you, I am going to steal and use it!) slick statistics. All I meant in praising it when I lived there, was that the cultural diversity was the most expressive I had seen in this country. (in the world, I happen to like Amsterdam, and Paris over London and Berlin -- others would disagree; Rome is a in a class by itself, mostly because of the sheer overwhelming sense of history) But yes, I agre with you, personal preferences, and slick statistics should not weigh - but I don't think theater openings should either, at least as the sole barometer. I happen to agree with RJN on the general issue, but there ought to be a better gauge to decide than either number of seats, or number of openings either! BOTH are "slick statistics." old windy bear 01:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
RJN, if you think 40 miles is a short distance, you must really be addicted to sitting in your car. I guess that goes hand in hand with loving Houston? 128.138.44.10 15:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am not going to provoke an edit war but I do hope that we can say what we need to say without being tasteless. Furthermore, here is what Wikipedia says about censoring comments . . .
"Removing uncivil comments Strike offensive words or replace them with milder ones on talk pages (this is often seen as controversial, as is refactoring other people's words) Remove offensive comments on talk pages (since they remain in the page history, anyone can find them again or refer to them later on) Revert an edit with &bot=1, so that the edit made by the offender appears invisible in Recent Changes (do-able on ip contributions, requires technical help for logged-in user) Delete (entirely and permanently) an edit made by the offender (requires technical help) Permanently delete an offensive comment made on the mailing lists (requires technical help) Replace a comment made in an edit summary by another less offensive comment (requires technical help)"
I hate to sound like a moral compass but I stand by my decision to remove the words in question--particularly the "di" word-- just as I stand by my decision not to press the issue further. Katefan0 is an adult and a indespensable contributor to this page. I just thought things got a little icky. Dinobrya
Well, I said what I needed to say. That was a textbook example of what not to say. Just because none of us should aspire to be "Miss Manners" {a comment I find directed towards me} does not mean that we should not have manners. BTW, I much prefer "Mr. Manners" {lol}. "Offensive" in the context of the above and quoted passage can mean more than an attack levied against an individual. I do not see anything that would indicate that Wikipedia is completely uncensored. From my reading of the Wikipedia rules, such language is clearly frowned upon but I said that I would not strike it out again. So as far as I am concerned . . . WE ARE COOL. Dinobrya
Right . . . Well, I hit a link or two from the above link and found this: [4]. Which includes the following: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not." There is no question in my mind that other words could have been used. As I have said several times before, however, I will not touch those words again. I am content to agree to disagree. Having said that, I am more than willing to return serve on challenges to the decision I made a few days ago. Dinobrya
Well, I can figure out what places I can inhabit--especially after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 {lol}. I would much rather focus on this talk page and the article rather than whether or not I belong here. I am not going anywhere.
I also anticipated the argument article as opposed to talk would come up. It is the same argument that I would have for the link :: Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors.It does not say "talk page", it says "article". I simply addressed a tangential reference with another tangetial reference. The above link pertains not to language on talk pages but to the explicit nature of some of the articles that are on Wikipedia. It would only be natural, for example, that there would be sexual language, sexual act, or nudity on an article about pornography. However, that link was checked by the link that I brought into the discussion, which essentially said that anyone who includes profanity and obscenity in article must take into account how appropriate the material included is. Naturally, a picture with two people engaged in a sexual act on an article about "My Little Pony" or the "Cabbage Patch Kids" would be very difficult to defend. The only reason of including explicit material in such a case is to be encyclopedic. We are still cool, I am not making additional edits to the words in question, and I remain not convinced. White's Move {wink}. Dinobrya.
Once again, Wikipedia does have standards of decency. I do not think pointed insults such as "Miss Manners" or "adults who inhale sharply at a curse word" does anything to dispute what I brought up. I find no use in sarcastic quips. When I struck that phrase down, I wished no ill will towards the one who wrote it. In fact, I am quite impressed with her(?)as a contributor. I did what I honestly felt was right. I felt and still do feel that the passages I quoted backed me up on that. The "F-Word" as an adjective is one thing, measuring genitalia, although a clever way of putting things, is quite another. The only reason I did not pursue it further was that I reasoned that there were worse things that could have been said. Despite recent caricatures of me, I am no Ned Flanders nor do I run a laundry mat for dirty mouths. Had the language been overwhelmingly obscene, however, I would have pursue the issue more aggressively and could have cared less what would have been said. Dinobrya
I found it rather funny... Urban909
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/soc/3609485.html
Logo and name leaked before the press conference. Here it is:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v300/drludicrous/hou_lg.gif
Time to update the sports section. SteelyDave 00:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Content was recently added that (to me) appears to be promotional materials for ADV Films and Swishahouse studios...complete with company logos, artists and product lists. I removed the edits and realized that other readers may not consider this advertising. I restored the section. Your opinion? Postoak 02:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I think a picture of the whole skyline with Post oak, Greenway plaza, Downtown all tied in together wold be nice to see. Robbyfoxxxx 18:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm, not sure that we needed a source for the 109 F claim. It can be easily verified at http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KIAH/2000/9/4/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA for interested parties. I just didn't want to clutter the bottom of the main page with sources in an already long article. Any disagreements? 24.175.64.6
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Any objections to adding "screwston" to the list of nicknames? I mean, it has as much legitimacy as "H-town"... AFAIK both came from hip-hop. 67.180.27.77 23:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)TriniTriggs
I understand that it's not intended to be offensive, but it would be perceived so by many casual web surfers. If it is included, it should have an explanation following it. That's a bit much for an infobox. I would say leave it out of the infobox, but put it in the body of the article with an explanation of its origin. Rockhopper10r 01:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I have never heard of this either. In my opinion, we should only stick with "Space City" and "Bayou City". Adding "H-Town" in there wasn't appropriate either. I or any of the people I encountered don't refer to Houston as "H-Town". "H-Town" is slang and is not even American English. It is only used by a certain subgroup/subculture in their music or rather, trash talk. I am going to remove "H-Town" since the general or civilized population do not refer to Houston as that, therefore it is not legitimate. We shouldn't have street talk/slang languages or phrases in an encylopedia. RJN 01:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I've heard Screwston and the "City of Screw" used many times. Like TriniTriggs said, it stems from the "screwed" music. But naturally even if there's no derogatory connection, you're not going to hear it used in as many contexts. (What news anchor would dare?) Additionally, I doubt it's the type of thing most Wikipedia editors would stumble across (sorry for generalizing). This doesn't make it any less of a nickname though. I vote for it. 67.10.252.128 07:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Houston is no longer the "fattest city" according to Men's Fitness magazine. I feel that we should remove the 2005 ranking and the doughnut comments and replace with something more appropriate. Do we even want to update with the 2006 ranking? Postoak 01:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Postoak removed the section
Why? It's well sourced and it's one of Houston's main claim to fame. There have even been documentaries made on the subject. // Liftarn
Since it's written in the past tense I don't see the problem. Should all historic material be purged? I don't think so. I also notice you're attempting to use guild by association rather than providing sources. // Liftarn
I made a Houston userbox. It is at {{User Houston}}. I used Chicago's template to make it. :) WhisperToMe 02:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
This article reads like a brochure from the Houston chamber of commerce: "Known for the vibrancy of its visual and performing arts, Houston's Theater District is ranked second in the country in the number of theatre seats in a concentrated downtown area per capita and has world-class visual arts... The city is also close to sunny beaches as well as one of the United States' largest concentrations of pleasure boats and tourist attractions... Houston has much to offer, including the lowest cost of living and the least-expensive housing among 27 major U.S. metropolitan areas with populations of more than 1.7 million." If you didn't catch it the first time: "Houston is widely recognized as the nation's third most important city for contemporary visual arts..." More effusive adjectives: "renowned", "world powerhouse", "vibrancy", "international". The Texas Medical Center is "internationally-renowened" and the skyline is "the third largest in the country". Even the freeways are "heavily traveled," not congested. It turns out highway construction and gridlock aren't quality of life problems like in other cities, but exist "to meet the demands of continuing growth." This isn't informative, this is relentless boosterism. Mfk91 06:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The phrase "Houston is widely recognized as the nation's third most important city for contemporary visual arts..." is not anywhere in the article—you made this one up. How is the phrase "The city also has the third largest skyline in the country (after New York City and Chicago)..." read like a brochure? This statement is a fact, not an opinion, so I don't know why you are disputing it.
Houston is well known for its visual and performing arts. Have you ever been to Houston? The information regarding the Theater District ranking second of theater seats in a concentrated downtown area came from the Houston Theater District website, not the Chamber of Commerce. The information is also a fact, not an opinion or a guess.
This article has been through a lot for it to be what it is today. I have been actively involved in editing this article since May 17, 2005 in hoping one day it will be a featured article. By "being through a lot," I meant that this article has been edited and copyedited by many people—a lot of information were added/revised/re-written. This article went under a major copyedit by Katefan0 last summer and she had done a great job rewording the majority of the text for style, grammar, and for NPOV. Later on last fall, Katefan0 had another copyedit session of this article. After all this, I don't see how this article could be written by the Chamber of Commerce or sounded like it came from one since it has been edited/copyedited so many times.
Houston is close the beaches with a short travel to Galveston Island. Again, this is a fact, not an opinion. Downtown Houston is about 40 miles or so away from Galveston Island, etc. Why would this sound like it came from the Chamber of Commerce? On the southeast side of Houston, there are many tourist attractions such as the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (where Mission Control is located), NASA, Kemah Boardwalk, Clear Lake, etc. Pleasure boats are found on this side of town. How are these facts boosterism? Shouldn't the truth be told about certain attractions that this area has to offer?
It is possible that other websites online copied information from here—it is very common for this to happen. I have found a lot of websites that copied and pasted articles from Wikipedia to their website. Can you tell me where you found this information to be from the Chamber of Commerce? There is also no such thing as the "Houston Chamber of Commerce" as I searched Google. There happen to be many Chamber of Commerce in the Houston area by geographic area, but not a "Houston Chamber of Commerce." I looked up some of the Houston area Chamber of Commerce websites by area and I did not find any information that is similar to information here in the Houston article. So can you give me some proof that this was written by the "Houston Chamber of Commerce" (as there is no such thing as one) and provide a website to this "Houston Chamber of Commerce." If not, I will remove the POV-section templates and do some re-writting/re-wording when time permits. I would like to know what brochure has information from this article. If you have time, you should study the edit history from the summer time to see that phrases of this article has been edited and copyedited many times—there is no way it can be from the "Houston Chamber of Commerce" (doesn't exist) as you claimed.
Regarding the "Transportation" section (freeways and how they are "heavily travelled," etc.), I don't have a comment for it because I really haven't mess with that section ever since I edited this article from May 17, 2005 to present. Maybe other editors such as WhisperToMe, Katefan0, Urban909, SaltyKid, and Rangerdude could comment on it—they contributed and made copyedits to this section since I have been here from what I can recall.
Regards,
RJN 10:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
" It is not a dispassionate encylopedia article. All this gushing about pleasure boats and renowned attractions is of course grounded in factually correct information. So too would be an article singing the virtues of chocolate, citing statistics of its enduring popularity through the ages, scientific studies demonsrating that it releases pleasure hormones, and so on. Perhaps it would be factually accurate, but it would obviously not be telling the whole story. What about health effects? Cholesterol? Labor conditions on third-world coccoa plantations? Covering the subject"
Urban spawl? City known for air and ozone pollution? A sometimes unbearably hot climate? Check. WhisperToMe 02:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
RJN I am going to weigh in on this one, though I have not lived in Houston since 1983. However, I am a graduate of San Jacinto College, and the University of Houston, worked for the city, and lived there almost a decade. Even at that point, the vibrancy of the city's artistic community was astonishing. I have also lived in New York, and Houston had an artistic community and unique cross-culture lifestyle that matched anywhere I had ever lived, including the Big Apple. I don't think this article is an advertisement for the chamber of commerce, sorry, it is just an accurate reflection of what I saw when I lived, went to school, and worked there, from 1975 to 1983. I have since returned several times, and the City is more alive than ever. Houston matches up favorably, in my opinion as someone who lived there, with any city in the WORLD for it's artistic community, lifestyle, and just the way the varied cultures managed to (generally) blend successfully. old windy bear 13:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
-- It's really inaccurate for this article to claim that Houston is the second most important in terms of theater. This business of "concentrated seats within a downtown area per capita" is completely preposterous, even if it happens to be true. Lots of cities could find similarly convoluted ways of claiming to be first (or second) in almost anything. Chicago, Boston, and LA all have much more influential theater districts than Houston, and often have preview runs of Broadway shows before they hit NY. I've never even heard of a major show making a first-run stop in Houston. -- Jleon 14:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Jleon I understand your point - but the seats issue is simply one statistic to measure theatrical influence and importance. Does anyone have how many major shows hit each city? Per capita dollars spent at each? I would be curious to see those figures and would wager Houston would do fairly well. All kidding aside, I lived in LA and NY, prior to living in Houston and Houston was far and away the most uniquely crosscultured of the three, though NY was close. LA is way overrated when you get outside of Holywood, and culturely segregated to a far greater degree than Houston. As to first stops, they are usually almost always on Broadway, or, if produced in LA, there. But I would rather see another criteria used to measure theater district influence, personally. old windy bear 22:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Jleon is right. Anyone can come up with a slick statistic like 'concentrated seats in a downtown area per capita'. The point of Wikipedia is to use solid information, not iffy factoids. old windy bear, it's wonderful you feel such pride for Houston. Some people love it and some people hate it. Best to leave personal preference out of it. With something as subjective as a 'cultural scene' it seems best to describe it using reasonable parameters. This is admittedly difficult to do. What's the best criteria: Dollars spent on tickets? Audience attendance? Number of art galleries? You could criticize each one of these. If you stick more with generalities, grounded in some factual basis, you avoid pitfalls like suggesting a place is 'the second most important in the nation' etc. Also, regarding Broadway tours: Chicago, Boston, and LA (but especially Boston) are the traditional locations for first runs, often even before NYC. This is because they have well-established show biz infrastructure, strong theater scenes, and influence with media and theater critics, but aren't nearly as expensive as NYC. Hate to say it, but Houston just isn't part of that picture, and nor is Las Vegas despite the major show biz industry there. But the bigger point is that theater in general may not be the best single metric to describe a 'cultural scene.' Mfk91 00:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Mfk91 Don't pass out from shock, but I agree with you that slick statistics and personal preferences should not weigh as criteria in an encyclopedia article. What I was trying to say - and I think you would agree with me, is that there ought to be some other gauges as to the cultural vitality of a city other than the opening of shows, or ANY single event or (I like your phrase and warn you, I am going to steal and use it!) slick statistics. All I meant in praising it when I lived there, was that the cultural diversity was the most expressive I had seen in this country. (in the world, I happen to like Amsterdam, and Paris over London and Berlin -- others would disagree; Rome is a in a class by itself, mostly because of the sheer overwhelming sense of history) But yes, I agre with you, personal preferences, and slick statistics should not weigh - but I don't think theater openings should either, at least as the sole barometer. I happen to agree with RJN on the general issue, but there ought to be a better gauge to decide than either number of seats, or number of openings either! BOTH are "slick statistics." old windy bear 01:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
RJN, if you think 40 miles is a short distance, you must really be addicted to sitting in your car. I guess that goes hand in hand with loving Houston? 128.138.44.10 15:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am not going to provoke an edit war but I do hope that we can say what we need to say without being tasteless. Furthermore, here is what Wikipedia says about censoring comments . . .
"Removing uncivil comments Strike offensive words or replace them with milder ones on talk pages (this is often seen as controversial, as is refactoring other people's words) Remove offensive comments on talk pages (since they remain in the page history, anyone can find them again or refer to them later on) Revert an edit with &bot=1, so that the edit made by the offender appears invisible in Recent Changes (do-able on ip contributions, requires technical help for logged-in user) Delete (entirely and permanently) an edit made by the offender (requires technical help) Permanently delete an offensive comment made on the mailing lists (requires technical help) Replace a comment made in an edit summary by another less offensive comment (requires technical help)"
I hate to sound like a moral compass but I stand by my decision to remove the words in question--particularly the "di" word-- just as I stand by my decision not to press the issue further. Katefan0 is an adult and a indespensable contributor to this page. I just thought things got a little icky. Dinobrya
Well, I said what I needed to say. That was a textbook example of what not to say. Just because none of us should aspire to be "Miss Manners" {a comment I find directed towards me} does not mean that we should not have manners. BTW, I much prefer "Mr. Manners" {lol}. "Offensive" in the context of the above and quoted passage can mean more than an attack levied against an individual. I do not see anything that would indicate that Wikipedia is completely uncensored. From my reading of the Wikipedia rules, such language is clearly frowned upon but I said that I would not strike it out again. So as far as I am concerned . . . WE ARE COOL. Dinobrya
Right . . . Well, I hit a link or two from the above link and found this: [4]. Which includes the following: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not." There is no question in my mind that other words could have been used. As I have said several times before, however, I will not touch those words again. I am content to agree to disagree. Having said that, I am more than willing to return serve on challenges to the decision I made a few days ago. Dinobrya
Well, I can figure out what places I can inhabit--especially after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 {lol}. I would much rather focus on this talk page and the article rather than whether or not I belong here. I am not going anywhere.
I also anticipated the argument article as opposed to talk would come up. It is the same argument that I would have for the link :: Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors.It does not say "talk page", it says "article". I simply addressed a tangential reference with another tangetial reference. The above link pertains not to language on talk pages but to the explicit nature of some of the articles that are on Wikipedia. It would only be natural, for example, that there would be sexual language, sexual act, or nudity on an article about pornography. However, that link was checked by the link that I brought into the discussion, which essentially said that anyone who includes profanity and obscenity in article must take into account how appropriate the material included is. Naturally, a picture with two people engaged in a sexual act on an article about "My Little Pony" or the "Cabbage Patch Kids" would be very difficult to defend. The only reason of including explicit material in such a case is to be encyclopedic. We are still cool, I am not making additional edits to the words in question, and I remain not convinced. White's Move {wink}. Dinobrya.
Once again, Wikipedia does have standards of decency. I do not think pointed insults such as "Miss Manners" or "adults who inhale sharply at a curse word" does anything to dispute what I brought up. I find no use in sarcastic quips. When I struck that phrase down, I wished no ill will towards the one who wrote it. In fact, I am quite impressed with her(?)as a contributor. I did what I honestly felt was right. I felt and still do feel that the passages I quoted backed me up on that. The "F-Word" as an adjective is one thing, measuring genitalia, although a clever way of putting things, is quite another. The only reason I did not pursue it further was that I reasoned that there were worse things that could have been said. Despite recent caricatures of me, I am no Ned Flanders nor do I run a laundry mat for dirty mouths. Had the language been overwhelmingly obscene, however, I would have pursue the issue more aggressively and could have cared less what would have been said. Dinobrya
I found it rather funny... Urban909
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/soc/3609485.html
Logo and name leaked before the press conference. Here it is:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v300/drludicrous/hou_lg.gif
Time to update the sports section. SteelyDave 00:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Content was recently added that (to me) appears to be promotional materials for ADV Films and Swishahouse studios...complete with company logos, artists and product lists. I removed the edits and realized that other readers may not consider this advertising. I restored the section. Your opinion? Postoak 02:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I think a picture of the whole skyline with Post oak, Greenway plaza, Downtown all tied in together wold be nice to see. Robbyfoxxxx 18:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm, not sure that we needed a source for the 109 F claim. It can be easily verified at http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KIAH/2000/9/4/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA for interested parties. I just didn't want to clutter the bottom of the main page with sources in an already long article. Any disagreements? 24.175.64.6