Shouldn't the article name be Houston? Even if there are more than one Houston, I'd think Houston, Texas would fall into the same category of Paris as the "most well-known". Unless anyone disagrees I'd like to move the article back. -- Wrh2 23:40, 24 Oct 2005 (EDT)
That is a great idea. Houston is massive and the other "Houstons" are quite small in comparison.
Links removed from main page.
The following links were removed from the main page because they do not follow the external link guidelines. However they may be useful reading when adding to the article itself. -- Ilkirk 20:10, 13 Nov 2005 (EST)
NoDo? Does anybody actually call it that? That's the warehouse district, right? I don't frequent that area too much, but I have never heard that term used by anybody.
And I don't think that anybody actually calls the (Asian) Bellaire "New Chinatown."
I think Two Rows deserves a mention in the local beers section. How about Shiner, though ? Is that close enough?
Oh the warehouse district. I've lived in Houston all my live and never heard "nodo" outside of WT. And shiner is a texas institution. Jordanmills 15:26, 24 April 2006 (EDT)
yeah I've never heard the term "NoHo" either, just "warehouse district." Also, the term "Bellaire Chinatown" seems to be much more common than "New Chinatown."
Never heard NoHo or NoDo, lived in Houston all my life. Also, I thought Two Rows was in Dallas. I do know for a fact Shiner is its own town in Texas - if I'm not mistaken it's closer to San Antonio. And three "downtowns?" You'll never anyone refer to these areas as anything but Downtown, Uptown (a.k.a. Galleria), and "The Medical Center."
I renamed it. I've never heard of "nodo", saw little contrary input. Also rewriting the "three downtowns" stuff. Jordanmills 00:13, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
I removed the link for the bus charter service; I think that's outside the range of information for the typical travel guide. --Evan 17:32, 4 December 2006 (EST)
It looks like spam spewed all over a bunch of pages. Jordanmills 14:58, 5 December 2006 (EST)
So I added a couple more bars. We're getting a good long list here, maybe more than should be in a section. But they all seem to lend their own personality to the city, and I can't think of any that should be cut. Should any, and if so, which? Jordanmills 22:08, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
We tend to like the number 9 around here, so that's about the # of listings we aim for in each section... looks like this one's still fine :) – cacahuatetalk 02:52, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
I thought we went for 7 +/- 2? I guess I have seven there now, leaving room for more. Jordanmills 11:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Why does this city still not have the huge city template? It already has the districts listed there. I think a city this big deserves way more than 9 places in its Drink section. Texugo 04:29, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
'Cause I only have so much time, and it would take some thought to break it apart. At any rate, Houston doesn't translate as well to districts as most other cities. There's very little "community feel" to anything smaller than the city as a whole. For example, ALL the museums are in the museum district, while there is very little shopping there. I'm not sure how well it would translate. Jordanmills 11:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Obviously nothing is set in stone... what I meant was that we would wait for the 7 + 2 before actually needing to delete anything... and even then I think it's open to discussion, since a place like Houston that maybe doesn't need to be split into districts will still be big enough to possibly warrant more than 9 drink or eat listings... the idea with Huge Cities is that when broken into disticts you've got 9 for each section in each district... and even 9 for each subcategory (budget, mid-range, splurge)... basically though, I think if something is good and the traveler should know about it, then we should put it there regardless of a pesky # rule :) – cacahuatetalk 13:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm going ahead and giving a shot at districtifying the city. As Jordanmills pointed out last year, not every district may have a full load of stuff for every section, but the hotel listings and the see and do sections are already getting too much for a single page, and there are certainly a whole lot more restaurants that could be recommended if we break it up. For now, I went ahead with the districts more or less as they were laid out in the District section before, but I want to suggest that Katy and The Woodlands get their own separate articles, and that we combine Clear Lake with Friendswood to make a single article. Also I have flipflopped a lot on what to call the Med Center/Rice/Museum District article and would appreciate some input from locals. The Houston Chronicle seems to vaguely refer to it as "Inside the Loop" but I don't know exactly what areas that includes or if it is actually common parlance there. Please comment on my work so far. Texugo 02:09, 29 February 2008 (EST)
I'm starting to think that this was a bad idea. I mean look, it's empty (districts)and there is like NO pictures!!!! No one really seeems to be doing anything with it anywasy, its' like an abandoned project! this is sad! if your going to do this, at least know that you need to FUFILL it !!!! Keeep smiling, Edmontonenthusiast 14:11, 3 November 2008 (EST).
I do not really like your patronizing attitude. My contributions were obviously in good faith, arising out of a real need-- Yes some of the districts have little to no information, but several of them have quite a bit (e.g. Downtown, Med Center, Uptown, Montrose, River Oaks), and the main article still contains a lot of listings that will go toward filling up the rather empty ones. The article as it stood before was extremely long beyond the point of needing districtification. I stopped work on it because I wanted comments and possibly help from someone who lives there. I don't live there, which means I don't have any pictures (which is not top-priority anyway), and locating which district a listing goes in is time-consuming google-maps work. You are welcome to contribute to that work, and I could accept even a little nudge to see if I have time for it, but you shouldn't criticize me for not having done it all myself. Wiki works by contributing what you can when you can, not by staking out a claim and assuming responsibility for finishing an article. And I find outright laughable any suggestion that a city of this size doesn't need districtification. Texugo 00:31, 4 November 2008 (EST)
Hey, 'Tex, I'm sorry if I made you feel bad. I know it's a lot of work and you don't even liivve there! I could try a little bit...with helping move stuff, etc. Anyways, don't expect much because I am mostly doin' western Canadian cities, as well I will soon be starting up Austin...I mean that one's in bad shape too, no offense, but there is like no info in the districts. My point is just that if you aren't or you know no one else will complete/work on it lots, to me, there is little-to-no point in districting it. You need people to work on it. To me, if you are the one districting it, unless you specifically know someone else will, you should be responsible for putting in the work. I am sorry if that does make you feel bad. I will try to help some. I see you do try, and it's hard when you live in Japan, ;). Keep smiling, eetalk 12:23, 4 November 2008 (EST).
ee, it doesn't make me feel bad at all, because your attitude is completely and utterly wrong. It does piss me off a little though. Taking an article a few steps towards being a star does not in any way oblige the contributor to go all the way-- the only responsibility that comes along with making a contribution is of ensuring that the addition is accurate and legal. Neither is it necessary to assemble a team of contributors for work on a destination before contributing-- that is the spirit of Plunge forward. For you to go around telling long-time heavy contributors that they are leaving jobs unfinished, that they haven't contributed enough, well, that is just plain offensive. So contribute here, or don't. But please try to be a little more sensitive and appreciate the work that has been done, rather than chastise people for not doing enough. Texugo 23:52, 4 November 2008 (EST)