Talk:Galveston Bay Area/Archive 2

Advertisement, neutrality and fan POV

Recopying from the archive --Mcorazao (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This article reads like something that one would find in the local Chamber of Commerce brochure. Cleary, the tone of this article promotes the "Galveston Bay Area" and most of its sources comes from various local chamber of commerce offices, tourist magazines or websites, and other fansites.

It seems the single major contributor of this article wants to create an illustion of such major distinction for the "Galveston Bay Area" within Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown. In addition, the tone and style of this article is written as if "Galveston Bay Area" is an established or incorporated entity, which it is not.

So far, only the history, geography, demographics, and education sections contain reliable sources and are neutral in tone. The culture section is heavily biased in tone and sounds like it comes directly from a brochure.

RJN (talk) 07:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

RJN, thanks for moving the discussion to this page as I requested. I appreciate it.

Folks, I still am not sure I totally get the reasons for the hostility this article generates. In general many of the complaints listed here could be made about the Houston article or many other well-rated articles. And the arguments as to whether the Bay Area deserves to be treated as distinct in some fashion apply equally well to Greater Houston and South Side (Chicago) among others.

I am getting the impression that a component of this is some Houston bias (mind you, I myself grew up in Houston and never lived in the Bay Area so I have no inherent bias in favor of the area myself). Houstonians like to call their town the Space City and the Energy City and other such things and any suggestion that any part of that identity could be somehow divided from the main part of Houston can seem offensive. But Wikipedia is not a place for POV rants. Certainly there are legitimate reasons to argue that the ties in the Bay Area are not necessarily stronger than the ties to Houston. But that's not really the point. There are unique aspects to the topic and there are unique things that tie it together and it is seen as distinct to one degree or another by some secondary sources (whether or not all sources see it that way, again, is not the point).

The purpose of this article is not to critique its own reason for existing. Articles in general should tend to cast their topics in a somewhat positive light. After all, if you can't come up with anything interesting to say about the topic then why have the article in the first place?

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. RJN, thanks for the effort at inline tagging the article and correcting mistakes. As far as the rest of it, my recommendation would be that you do your own research and make your own edits. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

RJN, I went through a lot of your tags. Unfortunately I have to say that some don't appear to have been added in good faith (the one that floored me the most was your trying to argue that the Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership is not authoritative in its own self definition). I have replaced the OR tags with "Citation needed" tags. If you have genuine OR concerns please retag only the sentences that where there is a genuine concern. Simply not liking the way a sentence is written or wanting to see more sources backing it up is not a genuine basis to claim OR. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through all the tags and added many new citations. Please review. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There are some sections of this article that read like a thesis or journal; Wikipedia has guidelines regarding that, however in this instance I think the article has evolved to where its not so much of an issue. It is difficult to introduce new material, especially that which may not have been previously common knowledge, without presenting it in such a way. Furthermore, to advance ourselves in education and society, we become accustomed to writing in a professional, informative and logical style -- which sometimes does not mesh well with WP:MOS due to the specific nature of Wikipedia: it is edited & read by a vast number of people, most of whom I would guess are "non professional". I think this article has evolved to such a point where "Fan POV" and "Advertisement" is no longer an major issue. True, there are elements that do not fit the traditional "mold" of wiki articles of this type, and if this were an article on a controversial subject like Barack Obama or the Republican Party, I might suggest things be hashed out further; but this is an article on a non-controversial geographic area and any issues that might exist in it will sort themselves out over (ie: through peer-review etc). --Nsaum75 (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Review of overall concerns

Folks, this article still seems to be ruffling feathers, for reasons that I am still not entirely clear about. It was suggested that I put out another Rfc.

The question is specifically

What are the broad or overall concerns with the article?

I would make two specific requests of those commenting:

• Please make your comments actionable. Simply making blanket statements like it is biased or the sources are bad doesn't help much. How specifically do you think we need to modify the article? What type of approach would remove bias? What types of sources in particular subsections would be best to use?
• Please don't dive bomb. Coming in and leaving a nasty comment and then not being willing to discuss is not very helpful (and actually tends to take the discussion backward).

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Changing this to a peer review request. --Mcorazao (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup banners: peer review

A peer review has been requested for this article. After reading through it I have removed the POV banners (that relating to "lack of sources" had been previously deleted). Removing the banners is not an endorsement of the article, but it reflects the view that any POV elements, and various uncited statements, are not sufficiently a violation of Wikipedia policy to justify major cleanup banners. Numerous issue will be highlighted at the peer review; anyone who wishes to challenge aspects of the article is invited to do so on the review page, and to draw attention to the particular sections or phrasings which they find objectionable. Brianboulton (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

I am disputing the neutrality of this article. Please do not remove maintenance and other citation request tags. I am going to read this article line-by-line to re-address various issues. I am not going to do this all in one day or within one week because I have a GMAT to study for. This will take quite some time. The primary editor of this article had removed all the maintenance and citation request tags I had placed. Also, this talk page is not ready for archive because the issues are still outstanding. Do not try to hide various unaddressed issues of this article from other editors. —RJN (talk) 06:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Just clarifying, it was me who originally placed the 'primary sources' template, and later removed it as I felt that the sources in the article had developed to a point where they were sufficient. --Nsaum75 (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

RJN, since Brianboulton provided an explanation as to why he removed your banners I believe you should reciprocate by explaining more specifically why you put them back.

I have archived the closed discussions because this page was getting rather long, as per WP policy.

Also, it is highly inappropriate for you to delete comments from other editors as you did. I have restored these on this talk page.

--Mcorazao (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, deleting editors' comments from a talkpage is absolutely unacceptable. RJH, while I appreciate the importance of your GMAT to you personally, the article's development cannot be a hostage to your convenience. There are other peoples' timescales to consider, and if you can't give attention to the article within a reasonable period of time, you should withdraw. I am completely neutral about this article, and am in no way dismissing your concerns, though I believe your approach needs to be less heavy handed. If you are not able to give a proper justification for the banners you have reinstated within, say, a week, they should be removed again. Brianboulton (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? When did I delete anyone's comment? It was probably an accident when I copied and pasted the archive talk page back here. I did not delete anyone's comment on here. Do not accuse me of something because you disagree with my assessment of this article. —RJN (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

RJN, you deleted both Nsaum75's comments in the previous section and Brianboulton's comments in this section. I accept, though, your statement that it was mistake. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I went and reviewed the history of this talk page and found out that I indeed deleted two comments by mistake when I merged the archive messages back to here. —RJN (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC neutrality & point of view

Concerns (via tags) have been raised about the neutrality and point of view of an article about a geographic area, that includes part of the city of Houston, Texas. Input and comments are requested in regards to this article. --Nsaum75 (talk) 07:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Question -- On what grounds is the neutrality being disputed, and in which sections? It's an incredibly generic tag and the editor who suggested this be looked into further left no additional comments besides saying they would look at it in more detail "some time" later. Offhandedly, though as someone who knows little of the area coming through, I'm not really suspicious of the article after reading even after knowing of the RfC tag in advance. It's almost entirely informational/factual/literal and there's not that much that's inherently subjective. The list of resources and citations is extensive and from a variety of materials. There's scant a single statistic or broader definition of something that does not have at least one (if not 2) notes. Disputing neutrality would have to come in very specific areas, as I see the page survived a deletion proposal and has been improved even further since then. Regarding the idea that the place is "real", is a region has an organization for economic partnership as is given as note #1, that would give it a defined area of coverage. It has set locales and specific population data. The only level of "official region" above that is a US Census micro or metro statistical area, and since the area here is already covered it can't fit in that category. Just because a small region is already covered by an official Census area doesn't mean it can't meet the definition of a place with an article. If this wasn't possible, articles regarding neighborhoods or conglomerates of cities would not pass WP:N (where it has long since been established that they do). Datheisen (talk) 08:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality no longer disputed

I went and read this article line-by-line and edited for neutrality. Here is a link to cummulative changes I have made. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galveston_Bay_Area&action=historysubmit&diff=321148985&oldid=320454363 As anyone can see, I have made them more neutral and removed boosterism. In addition, I have removed several commentary remarks within the aricle. —RJN (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your removing the banners and offering comments here.

But I still can't agree with many of your edits. At best many of them simply dilute the prose lowering the quality of the article. At worst some of them are attempts to promote the city of Houston at the expense of the article's topic (this is not an article about Houston, after all).

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you link me to an edit where I promoted the city of Houston? Was it when I replaced any instances of "Clear Lake" or "Clear Lake City" with Houston? I did this for clarity and to avoid confusion. We both know that Clear Lake City is not a municipality—it is a master-planned community located within the city of Houston and a small portion in Pasadena. Again, I replaced all instances of "Clear Lake" or "Clear Lake City" with Houston for clarity and to avoid confusion because most people do not know that Clear Lake City is part of/within the city of Houston. Most Houstonians think that Clear Lake City is an independent municipality, which it is not. You mentioned "Clear Lake" or "Clear Lake City" as if it was its own jurisdiction (or a municipality in itself) and promote the confusion/misconception that already exists. Also, what is it that you do not agree with me regarding my edits? Please point out or explain some of my edits that I have made and what about them you disagree with. Just so you know, I do not live in the city of Houston so there is no need for me to promote Houston. —RJN (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's the pot calling the kettle black. I used to live in southwest Houston (but don't now) and have never lived in the Bay Area. So your accusations of boosterism are at least as implausible.

Anyway, to answer your question:

• NASA's Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center|Johnson Space Center (JSC) is located in the southeast-end of Houston in the central of the region. - Obviously you took out any direct indication that JSC is in the Bay Area leaving it to the reader to try to figure out what the point of the statement is. And obviously this was a deliberate attempt to emphasize that JSC is within the Houston city limits instead of emphasizing that it is within the scope of the article.
• The largest is the University of Houston–Clear Lake located partially in Pasadena and partially in Houston. - What was your reason for removing the clause?
• Several community colleges serve the area as well including Houston Community College (Clear Lake Houston), San Jacinto College (multiple locations), College of the Mainland (Texas City), and Lee College (Baytown). - What was the point of this edit? To say that the entire HCC system serves Clear Lake. To imply that all of Houston is really part of the Bay Area?
• Ellington Airport, the other branch of the Houston Airport System (HAS), is a mixed-use (military-civilian) airport located in the Bay Area between Clear Lake City and Pasadena Houston within the Bay Area. - Obviously this is an attempt to emphasize Houston (which is compounded by the fact that the sentence already mentioned the Houston Airport System anyway).

BTW, your comments above seem to imply some personal frustration about popular misconceptions surrounding the part of Clear Lake annexed by Houston. Whatever those frustrations may be this is not the place to work those out.

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The JSC is specifically mentioned on the official website for the economic partnership area as an employer within the Bay Area region it covers. I see no reason that an edit was needed and the mention of Houston looks a bit odd. That would be something to say on Houston's Wikipedia page. I also don't see a reason why the airport mention needed to be changed... though its official address is indeed Houston it also happens to reside in the area defined by this article. As a POV matter the original version is more natural. Cheers~ Datheisen (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

JSC and Ellington Field are located within the city limits of Houston so there is nothing "weird" or "POV" regarding my edits. The "Galveston Bay Area" (GBA) is not officially defined by any official authority. GBA is just a loosely defined area—not a recognized jurisdiction of any type. The boundaries described for the "Galveston Bay Area" in this article is nothing but arbitrary, original research, and boosterism by the area's chamber of commerce. There is no such defined boundary or boundaries for "Galveston Bay Area." —RJN (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I mentioned this in my RfC entry-- just because a place has a defined geographical location doesn't mean it is the only location it belongs. If this were the case, things like neighborhoods or subjective topographical regions would not be allowed Wikipedia articles. Moreover, specific locations are certainly allowed to be "covered" by economic development areas. Boundaries can be defined in multiple ways, and though I admit "within certain city limits" is a valid one, the GBA is defined geographically by map on the official web page and even explains which portion of the City of Houston it contains. As such, your reason for edit of "within the city limis of Houston" is invalid... the organization that lists those locations is not denying that they are in Houston proper. As the locations coincide it would only be accurate if your edit was "located in the south-east portion of Houston encompassed in the Galveston Bay Area". It would be a lot easier to undo all the edits of the past day and let the RfC play itself out or more changes could be seen to be in poor faith. Deliberately changing text such that it contradicts information in a citation might be viewed by some as a number of things, WP:POV and WP:BIAS included. Datheisen (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I went and addressed Mcorazao's line items above regarding Houston and fixed them in my recent edits. Datheisen, look at my recent edits and make changes to your post above accordingly before calling my edits "poor faith." Link showing cummulative edits that address Mcorazao's concerns: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galveston_Bay_Area&action=historysubmit&diff=321102925&oldid=321074679 —RJN (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, and I do now see the edits. I hadn't realized so many small ones had been done like that. Keep in mind that neutrality no longer disputed and the RfC are separate, and as such POV concerns are still open to discussion. It is much harder to follow and comment on an RfC concerning POV if the article is changing constantly, though. If you feel nothing constructive can be added by anyone and that there will be no further problems, then the person posting the RfC should be asked to remove it.Datheisen (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My only concern (and perhaps I'm looking into this more than I should) is the first line in the lead where "Bay Area Houston" is mentioned. The Galveston Bay Area to me is a generic term - loosely south of Houston, down to Galveston, east to the bay and west to 288. "Bay Area Houston" is a term fabricated by the BAHEP in 2003 [1] It appears to me that we are promoting this economic partnership. Postoak (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Postoak completely. "Galveston Bay Area" is just a loosely defined area—not a recognized jurisdiction of any type. The boundaries described for the "Galveston Bay Area" in this article is nothing but arbitrary, original research, and boosterism by the area's chamber of commerce. This is exactly what the dispute is about. —RJN (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally think of Galveston and Houston separately and distinctly. This article is titled Galveston Bay Area, Houston is going to be significant part of it (population, economics, etc). Just as if there were an article about the Lower Hudson River Valley, New York City would be prominent in the article and New Jersey would be mad. For what it is worth from someone who has only ever visited the area, I don't find the article to be not neutral. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is much more neutral now because I went line-by-line to remove POV wordings and commentaries within the article. —RJN (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

RJN, I appreciate that you are making an effort to address my concerns. At the very least our interactions seem to be very slowly getting more civil which is positive.

Though I think these last changes are a step in the right direction there are still some significant issues with what you have done. I don't necessarily think that the prose has to be the way I had written it (and there is still some work to do), but many of the changes you have made still introduce a non-trivial amount of POV (though less now) and have still made for some weak prose.

I could take a stab at trying to rephrase some of what you have written to try to find a compromise. But frankly I don't want to keep going in circles and I think that is what I would be doing. Ultimately you are still pushing an agenda (I don't know your background enough to know why) and while that continues to be the case there is going to be a problem.

For the moment I am refraining from further edits. I have requested mediation and am waiting for further feedback.

--Mcorazao (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What agenda am I pushing? I am not pushing any agenda so do not accuse me of something you cannot provide evidence. You are the one pushing an agenda here with the invention of the "Galveston Bay Area" and providing a definition of what the area should and should not include. You are the sole major contributor to this invented article since Wikipedia's existence. This article was first created by Mmcfarla in August 2007 with only three edits and had been dormant for two (2) years until you started adding information this past August. If the "Galveston Bay Area" was so significant, then how come it only had three edits prior to August 2009? I also question your references such as Chang, Blackburn, and Antrobus. Are these even real references or you just made them up? The way you had written the article contained a lot of boosterism wordings and commentary remarks, which I have removed to make the article more neutral. I did not add any additional information or remarks to make it more POV like you claimed. You seem to take ownership of this article and its content since you have been the sole major contributor. Please remember that what you put into Wikipedia is no longer yours. I realized that you have put a lot of work into this article so do not take it personally when other editors edit to make it more neutral. No one on here from the Houston area is stripping this article. I have edited this article just to make it read more neutral without sounding like it came from a brochure published by the area's chamber of commerce. In addition, no one is preventing you from continuing to edit this article. You requested mediation because you just could not wait for me to address concerns of this article after I have placed several tags? Next time, please be patient about it and handle it in a more professional manner by leaving a comment on my talk page. In addition, you also acted unprofessionally by going behind my back in hoping to get other parties outside of Houston to side with you regarding this article. You are supposed to have a dialogue with the editor that you disagree with first before taking it to mediation.—RJN (talk) 03:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have never gone behind your back. I tried to get you discuss your criticisms on this page weeks ago and you refused to do so. A Peer Review is certainly an appropriate way to gather feedback and mediation is an appropriate way to handle unresolved conflict.

There is perhaps a more fundamental issue here that your comments point out (previous comments have pointed to this too). The fact that you don't understand the Chang, Blackburn, etc. references indicates that you do not understand how to write WP articles or verify them. The fact that you are implying that I am a liar because you don't understand these things says a lot.

--Mcorazao (talk) 04:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I went and looked at your citations in question and tied them to the separate references section at the bottom of this article. I appologize for not tying it to the separate reference section for books during my review of this article. You should not have put the references section after external links. Other articles usually have the references section right after notes. How am I supposed to know they were past all these external links? The external links section should be last in the article. I had stopped by this article initially and left comments on here, but did not "watch" the page as I really did not have an interest discussing what was going on at the time among you and other Houston area editors. If I had any interests with this article to begin with, I would have voted it for deletion at the time. I never "refused" to discuss said issues because I had no idea that you were trying to get me to discuss my criticisms. If you were trying to get my attention, then you should have left me a message on my talk page regarding the on going issue discussed here. I do understand how to write a Wikipedia article and how to verify them. So what kind of "unresolved conflicts" do we have (left) that you cannot resolve them with me and other Houston area editors? Please be specific because I would like to understand what you are going through. You are blowing this non-issue out of proportion and making things harder than what they really should be. I saw that you wanted to limit my ability to edit this article in your request for mediation. Let me just stress that you do not own this article even though you have been the sole major contributor. In addition, I have spent almost five (5) years editing WP and you have been the only user to have ever accused me of making "bad faith" edits and "vandalism." Anyway, please look at my cummulative edits and tell me where you disagree. I am proactive in discussing this so called "unresolved conflicts" and you should be too instead of sitting back and accusing me of having an agenda. By the way, you never answered my question in regards to what kind of agenda you think I have. I do not have time for back and forth messages on Wikipedia going no where so please get to the point of what our "unresolved conflicts" are. I have wasted a lot of time discussing non-issue regarding GBA. Link showing cummulative edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galveston_Bay_Area&action=historysubmit&diff=321148985&oldid=320454363 —RJN (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, articles that are FA and GA all went through rigorous reviews from other people that questioned the neutrality and factuality that pretty much stripped down the entire article. I had to go through this with Houston and University of Houston articles during the 2005–2006 time period. (I was editing under a different account before December 2005.) It got to the point where I had left Wikipedia for a while. What you saw with the Galveston article being promoted to GA was nothing. It is hard to edit articles of places in a neutral tone if you live, work, or go to school there. Often times, it takes another editor independent of the editing to accurately assess the article for neutrality. I did learn a lot about Houston as I actively edited the article from 2005 to late 2006 and came to appreciate the city. I was very critical of the Houston article when I first edited in spring 2005 and eventually became a major contributor to the Houston article. Later on, another editor (Katefan0) became interested in the article and went through the Houston article and reviewed it line-by-line in summer of 2005 to identify tone, style, factuality and clarity, and I reacted the same way you are reacting now—defensive and frustrated. I thought she was a nuisance at first, but she helped raised the article's quality and made it neutral. I understand your frustrations, but this is part of the process of improving the GBA article. The Houston article was a major headache for me as I tried to improve it to FA status in 2005 and came across many obstacles. Those obstacles helped shape the article along the way and Houston later eventually became FA with major help from other Houston area editors, but I was basically the only one for a while. When you have time, I would suggest you go read the Houston article line-by-line and you will not find any boosterism wording, commentary or editorial remarks. —RJN (talk) 05:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If I recall, Mcorazao stated earlier that they had never lived within the Bay Area the article is discussing. Used to live in the broader region, but still never affiliated within the area here. Just a clarification, and I know the issue is deeper than place of residence. Datheisen (talk) 06:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit analyses

RJN, I appreciate that you are making an effort to have a conversation.

Since you have asked let me respond specifically to three things you have brought up.

• Agenda:

• You have stated in multiple ways that you feel this article is inappropriate and strongly implied and even stated that you think it should be deleted ("... I would have voted it for deletion at the time").

I have never voted to delete an article on Wikipedia before and really did not want to see this article deleted when it came up for deletion. —RJN (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• You have gone to great lengths to state and to make edits to the effect that you see Houston as being slighted by this article.

I only made these edits to clarify that Clear Lake City is part of and within the city limits of Houston. Your edits made it sound like Clear Lake City is its own municipal jurisdiction. There is enough confusion with most people in the Houston area thinking that Clear Lake City is a separate and independent municipal jurisdiction, which it is not and never was. —RJN (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Virtually ALL of your edits are directed at making the topic of the article sound less significant and/or emphasize Houston. Almost none of your edits have been for copyediting, adding new information, clarifying the content, etc.

I tried editing the article to make wordings neutral. I only emphasized Houston when it came to any mentioning of Clear Lake City to clarify and clear up confusion about its status. —RJN (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• The point is that you have demonstrated quite clearly that you have no interest in improving the article. You mention that Katefan0 helped you improve your work on Houston and I'll take your word for that. But what you have been doing here is not trying to help move it forward.

I do want this article to improve. If not, why would I have spent so much time recently to read the entire article line-by-line? If I did not care, I would not be having this discussion and analyzing your concerns line-by-line. —RJN (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Problems with the edits:

• "The communities host cultural events ranging from ballet and musical theater to fairs and rodeos." - This is a lead statement that summarizes later statements that have multiple sources. What is this tag doing other than wasting my time?

I have removed the original research tag for this sentence in the lead section. —RJN (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• "The Galveston Bay Area is relatively prosperous with the major portions of the has a local economy built around aerospace, petrochemical, and other high tech industries." - This edit does nothing more than make the sentence fall very flat. The original wording was in no way biased. Also the new wording overstates things (those sectors are not the only parts of the economy and some sectors of the economy are not really related to these at all). I don't mind a rephrase if you feel there is something better but your edit obviously was not intended to improve the prose.

I have reworded to sentence to read: "The Galveston Bay Area's local economy is principally built around aerospace, petrochemical, and other high tech industries." —RJN (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Most other employment in the region is supported by these industries although some smaller, independent industries exist as well." - This was a significant clarification in the text. There is certainly nothing about it that is biased or promotional though your comments implied it was.

I have re-inserted this sentence into the Overview section. —RJN (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• "... the Bay Area communities became part of an important commercial corridor between the cities." - The change makes the statement kind of flat. There wasn't really anything biased about saying it was "important" (are you implying that it wasn't important?).

I have reworded the sentence to read: "...the Bay Area communities became part of a principal commercial corridor between the cities." —RJN (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Important economic hubs include the following. Economic hubs of the Galveston Bay Area include the following:" - This looks like another case where a word like "important" irked you so you just just had to edit. The new phrasing is a bit more cumbersome. A word like "important" is valuable in a context like this simply because it explains why the article is mentioning it (i.e. otherwise it sounds as though I am just listing a few random concentrations of businesses in the area). It is certainly not biased to say that they are important (their importance is well sourced).

I have replaced "important" with the word "principal" —RJN (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• "The Bay Area's population is growing rapidly with League City, Seabrook and Dickinson leading the expansion to expand with double-digit growth rates by 2020, according to the BAHEP." - Obviously the edit makes the statement fall flat and it becomes less clear what the point of the statement was in the first place. The statement is well sourced and there was nothing controversial about it.

I have restored the original wording. —RJN (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• "The Bay Area is located in and near one of the most important one of the many commercial shipping hubs in the world." - Again making the statement fall flat and a deliberate attempt to make the topic sound less important. The Houston area is one of the most important shipping hubs in the world (and the Bayport and Texas City terminals are a part of that). There is nothing controversial about the original statement. In this case if you wanted to rephrase it to somehow explicitly say mention "the Houston area" I would have said that's ok. But, again, your edit was purely for the purpose of de-emphasizing the topic, not improving the prose (certainly not for making it NPOV).

I have restored the original wording. —RJN (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• And I could go on ...

• Comparisons to the Houston article:

• First, if you recall I was the one that said that I was using the Houston article as a model for this one. It is unfair to imply that you came up with that suggestion.
• The Houston article contains many of the things that you removed from this article. I can find Houston peppered with technically unnecessary descriptive phrases like "many," ("It is home to many cultural institutions and exhibits ..."), "numerous" ("The new residents came for the numerous employment opportunities in the petroleum industry"), "largest" ("the world's largest concentration of healthcare and research institutions"), and "best" ("the Museum of Fine Arts that houses one of America's best collections of decorative art"). I don't personally believe that any of these descriptions are inappropriate but you removed very similar wording in the GBA article.
• The Houston article specifically mentions Forbes "best" rankings four times. This is very obviously trying to sell how well Houston is looked upon. Again I don't think these are inappropriate. The article is about Houston and these are factual and relevant. But it clearly demonstrates that the Houston article is selling the city far more than this article is selling the Bay Area.

As I have said before, I have no problem with your making edits, even if they are edits that I disagree with, as long as they are genuine efforts to improve the article. But, in general, so far that has not been the case.

--Mcorazao (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

RJN, I REALLY appreciate your efforts here. This is a great show of good faith and I was not expecting it. For the first time since this all started I feel that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. You deserve congratulations for going the extra mile to be accomodating (and perhaps I deserve to be flogged for being so harsh).

Let me review where things stand and we can discuss more later.

Thanks again.

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Most Productive Self-Resolved Dispute... Ever?

Kudos to the both of you for managing to actually talk things out, and in a timely manner no less! Compared to any other RfC, AfD or outside opinion request I've randomly grabbed off the site lists, this could well be mistaken as, well... a normal conversation without any heat or extra energy behind it. If others went through even 10% as much the effort to detail matters point-by-point and reply in equal detail and actually allow wiggle room on disputed matters, Wikipedia could probably go a lot farther. Admittedly, it would be a lot more boring, but still far better off. I can't honestly say that I wouldn't fight harder for a page that I ended up spending so much time working on, so you've both got me beat. I'd like to give a quick apology if I've seemed rude with any of my comments-- really, no one did any real harm in any discussing and the things that stuck out to me most ended up being things that had been formatted a bit strangely in the talk pages. I'm... well, very impressed. Also a good thing you resolved it yourselves since I don't have any privileges toward article protection or right for input if this were contested at a higher level if it has escalated further! Since random replies to RfCs seem rare it could have been bad to try to get any other dispute resolution in in a timely manner. Good luck to the both of you on the broader topics of the SE Texas area. Datheisen (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal comment...both editors are top notch in my book. I have had the privilege to work with RJN for many years and with Mcorazao on a recent collaboration. I hope to work with both on many future projects. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Issue forum

Folks, there have been a few nagging issues issues that have been brought up more than once since this article began to be expanded. My earlier attempts at trying to begin general discussions on these were not fruitful. I would like to restart discussions on this issues with the specific goal of building consensus and closing them once and for all (barring new information that might force us to re-evaluate).

To this end I am doing two things:

1. I am putting here a series of subsections to discuss each of these issues (feel free to add another subsection if there is some other nagging issue that you feel needs closure). Again the intent is to make a decision and close the issue "permanently" (to the extent that anything is ever really permanent in Wikipedia).
2. I am putting a table at the top of this discussion page to record what is decided with the specific intent that the table stays there even when the discussions are archived.

Reasonable?

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Names of the topic

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Question:

• What names for the area should appear in the first sentence? And as a secondary question, is there a strong feeling about what alternative names should also be mentioned in the rest of the introduction?

Current solution:

• The two names specified currently are Galveston Bay Area and Bay Area Houston.

Key controversies:

• The name Bay Area Houston was invented as a marketing term by the Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership.

Comments:

• As far as I am aware the name of the article itself is not controversial. Regarding the name Bay Area Houston I'll copy here the comments I made privately to Postoak on the subject.

Ultimately I'm not married to keeping "Bay Area Houston" in the first sentence. I initially did not put it there because, as you say, it is a term invented by the BAHEP. I'll mention a couple of reasons why I put it there.

• The term is not used exclusively by the BAHEP. In the last several years there are several organizations and businesses that have started to use the term (Bay Area Houston Transportation Partnership, Bay Area Houston Ballet and Theater, etc.).
• Not all of these organizations use the term to refer exclusively to the communities in the BAHEP (e.g. the BAHTP involves communities from Clear Lake to Texas City).
• The term is being used by travel books, travel web sites, and other organizations outside the Bay Area. So clearly the term has caught on. It is no longer exclusively BAHEP's marketing term even though it started out that way.

So I put it in there just because the term has actually gained some currency. But I agree that it is debatable since it is a recently invented term. If there is a strong feeling that this should be removed from the first sentence I have no big objection.

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, for the sake of avoiding further controversy, I propose we simply use "Galveston Bay Area" as the primary name and then simply mention that "Bay Area" is a common alternative. I think it is a shame not to mention other alternatives but if it will help move the article forward I think these little details can be omitted. --Mcorazao (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Cutting-and-pasting Postoaks offline comments on the proposal.

Hi, yes, you have my support with the name "Galveston Bay Area" and "Bay Area". Thanks, Postoak (talk)

Any dissenters? --Mcorazao (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Done and done. --Mcorazao (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What should be included in the boundary

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Question:

• Which communities should be included in the definition of the Bay Area? (i.e. not "how" it is described but what is the scope of the article)

Current solution:

• All communities on the shores of the Galveston Bay system except those that also border the Gulf (Bolivar and Galveston), as well as those communities that are included by significant sources (i.e. not all sources necessarily but at least some).

Key controversies:

• There is no single, broadly recognized authority which publishes a definition for the area.
• Most people typically do not consider Anahuac and the north side of the bay part of the Bay Area.

Comments:

• I'm sure we'll never find an answer to this that makes everybody totally happy. But I'll state my opinion (again). First let me point out that some sources do talk about the entire shoreline as the "Bay Area" and people and businesses in Anahuac do characterize themselves that way to at least a certain degree. After having gone around this issue several times I finally decided that the most NPOV thing to say is that if it is on the Galveston Bay system then it is the Bay Area though some communities can be considered more "core" to the Bay Area than others. This can be compared to the fact that when somebody says "United Kingdom" most people think London or maybe England. People often do not think of Scotland, less often think of Northern Ireland, and the Falkland Islands are generally excluded, though all of these are actually part of the nation.

I also chose to include communities that are recognized by significant sources as being Bay Area communities even if they do not technically reach the bay (e.g. League City, Dickinson, etc.). --Mcorazao (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• In the demographics discussion below what we are effectively implying is a boundary definition. So let me propose here. What we are proposing is essentially the following communities to be included.

• The BAHEP communities (i.e. by there membership they are saying that they consider themselves "Bay Area"):

• Pasadena
• Houston (though only representatives from CL area participate)
• Dickinson
• Friendswood
• Kemah
• La Porte
• League City
• Nassau Bay
• Seabrook
• Webster
• Clear Lake Shores
• El Lago
• Taylor Lake Village

• Other communities that are explicit members in BayTran (BAHTP):

• Deer Park
• Morgans Point
• Shoreacres

• A few others that are by the bay and called "Bay Area" by some sources:

• Baytown
• Texas City
• La Marque
• Beach City
• Anahuac

Note that I am excluding the following BayTran cities: Alvin and Pearland. I guess we could include them if folks think I am being POV by excluding them. They are just so far inland that it is somewhat ridiculous to call them "Bay Area" communities.

Also note that BayTran also includes chambers of commerce and other organizations that cover larger areas (e.g. Houston-Galveston Area Council, Galveston County Economic Development Alliance). I am not including every community that is in those individual alliances.

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Copying Postoak's comments from below since it is relevant to this dicussion:

Agree with the content and presentation of data; I would suggest that the production version have a reference for each city's statistics after the city name. Table format: I would reduce font size to about 85% and shrink height a little. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

--Mcorazao (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

How to describe the boundary

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Question:

• How should the boundary be described taking into account the fact the term is used in different ways by different sources?

Current solution:

• The "primary" definition is all communities that border or are near the shores of the bay. Beyond that, explicitly mention that this is not an OMB-defined area and list some alternative definitions used by various sources.

Key controversies:

• It is arguably POV to pick any single boundary definition and say that is exclusively THE definition since no entity with unique authority provides such a definition.
• It is confusing to simply list alternative definitions used by different sources without giving weight to any one.

Comments:

• We've gone in circles on this one. I think the current version, while ok, is a little wishy-washy but I kept it wishy-washy to try to make people happy by not trying too hard to put a stake in the ground. However, for the sake of clarity, I think a stake needs to be put in the ground.

IMHO, it is ok for the article to say "This is what we are talking about" even though some others might be talking about something a little different when they use the term. The only requirement is that definition the article uses must be notable (i.e. if the article uses a definition that nobody else uses then that would be inappropriate). I believe that, in general, given the choice between being slightly too broad or cutting out some communities that could be included, it is more NPOV to be slightly too broad. That is why I selected the entire bay shoreline (except Bolivar and Galveston) as the "primary" definition. I believe that the Boundary section should be crispened to focus on this definition and mention the alternative uses of the term more briefly so as not to create confusion.

The caveat, of course, is that this broader definition is actually the least commonly used definition. But still, given that no single definition is really dominant, I think using this more inclusive definition is more NPOV. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be some discussion here or else the banners have to be removed. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Houston vs. Clear Lake

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Question:

• How should the fact that a small part of Houston, Clear Lake City (the residential communities, JSC, etc.), be dealt with in the article?

Current solution:

• Article originally mentioned only once that Clear Lake City is mostly a part of Houston with a small part in Pasadena. In the rest of the article it mostly referred to Clear Lake City without explicitly mentioning that the area is part of Houston.
• These descriptions have been in flux because of debates.

Key controversies:

• Mentioning Clear Lake in lieu of Houston could potentially lead the casual reader to believe this community is outside of the Houston city limits.
• Alternatively, there has been confusion about whether this article is really talking about Houston or not and repeatedly putting Houston's name in the article confuses that issue.

Comments:

• I personally believe that mentioning that Clear Lake City is part of Houston and Pasadena one time is sufficient. I will acknowledge that a casual reader might misunderstand that if we keep mentioning CL as an entity in the Bay Area they could potentially misread and think that it is outside the Houston city limits. However, the larger concern to me is ensuring that the reader understands that we are talking about a part of the metro area that is mostly outside of Houston (if everyone recalls a part of the old AfD nomination was the accusation that this article in fact was talking about the whole city of Houston). This article is after all about the Bay Area. Specific details about what is and is not within the Houston city limits are really more of an issue to be addressed in the Houston article. I think simply mentioning that once here is enough. The more important focus in this article should be on clarifying its own scope. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Bear in mind that Clear Lake City to a great extent does regard itself as distinct from Houston. Its water authority, school district, chamber of commerce, etc. are tied to the neighboring communities but not to the rest of Houston. So it is certainly not misleading to imply that there is a distinction between this area and the main part of Houston. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: RJN had edited the info box to change "Clear Lake (part of Houston/Pasadena)" to "Clear Lake (Houston)" with the edit comment

There are only two small subdivisions in Clear Lake City that are in Pasadena's city limits. I will address this in detail

Though I know I am being a bit of hypocrit because RJN is only changing the text back to what I originally had I think the newer version I created is preferable. First, for the sake of NPOV it is worth mentioning Pasadena even if this is only a small part (i.e. it doesn't take much space to be more NPOV). Regarding the "part of", the recent discussions and the previous AfD which had a lot to do with a misunderstanding of whether or not this article covers the whole city of Houston makes me think it is worth making absolutely sure nobody misunderstands that we are only talking about a small section of the city. I don't think the added text makes the infobox too verbose and it is worth it for clarity. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• New proposal: How about we approach this in a different way. Let's eliminate most references in the article to Clear Lake City. That eliminates most of these questions. To the extent we want to indentify locations in that vicinity we can just reference the lake itself without mentioning municipalities at all. Reasonable? --Mcorazao (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict):That might work. I think the underlying issue is, although the CLC development involved only a few specific "subdivisions", later development/businesses surrounding those areas adopted the "Clear Lake City" moniker or referred to themselves as being in "Clear Lake City" (when in fact, they were not). There was a time when there existed a Clear Lake City Bank [2] and even a First State Bank of Clear Lake City [3] ... and the "Clear Lake City Water Authority" (map) still exists and takes in most of the communities in the area, including parts of other cities (ie: Taylor Lake Villiage). Anyhow, all of this creates headaches and differing points of views among people. Anyhow, I could go along with Mcorazao's proposal to eliminate most references to CLC (or using Houston (CLC)) and maybe using the specific cities when it is warranted (or just using the lake name itself).. This convo is getting really hard to follow (or it might just be my slow internet connection...third-world internet connections suck sometimes) --Nsaum75 (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No, not reasonable. Are you not reading what is being discussed in the infobox issue regarding what other Houston area editors have been saying about the issue of mentioning this as part of southeast Houston? Whatever other Houston area and myself said there apply to this section as well. You are making the organization of this talk page very hard to deal with. Also, you do not determine whether or not what item(s) is/are closed or still open either! —RJN (talk) 04:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have been reading what's in the infobox discussion. I was trying to decide what to say next.
• I have separated these discussions because we continually mix issues.
• You have not offered an explanation for your rejecting the proposal.
• Who suggested this issue is closed?

--Mcorazao (talk) 04:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

So this conversation needs to get closed. What is in the prose right now (other than the infobox) really is not acceptable as it overemphasizes the city of Houston. We have one objection to the proposal (without further clarification) and one statement of support. Any other feedback or counterproposals? --Mcorazao (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. To be clear, we are leaving the infobox alone (that issue is closed). The proposal is to mention Clear Lake City and Houston together once or twice in the prose as absolutely necessary and then avoid all further references to either entity. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Mcorazao, whether you know it or not (or fail to accept/admit), the central economic activities of the "Bay Area" is within the limits of Houston. Boeing, JSC, Space Center Houston, Ellington Field, Lockheed Martin, etc. are major economic activities of the "Bay Area" that is located in Houston but not within Clear Lake City. Clear Lake City is not an entity of any type—it is a residential community that was developed by Friendswood Development Company. Let me repeat, Clear Lake City was never an incorporated entity/jurisdiction of any type. This is like you are comparing Bellaire (an incorporated municipality) and Sharpstown (a master-planned residential community) in the same sentence. You are not being consistent by comparing the same type of things in the article. You list other cities in the "Bay Area" but then you mention "Clear Lake City," which is not the same in comparison as Baytown or Pasadena. Clear Lake City alone is not an important aspect of the "Bay Area." The heart (center of economic activities) of the "Bay Area" lies in Houston, but is not within Clear Lake City. Also, do you consider Bay Brook Mall (I-45 and Bay Area Blvd) and the area around it to be part of the "Bay Area?" Do you realize that Bay Brook Mall and adjacent major commercial centers are in Houston, but they are not within Clear Lake City? Clear Lake City alone does not have any economic activities. Clear Lake City is just a collection of subdivisions, apartments, and some commercial strip centers that was developed by the Friendswood Development Company and are now managed by the Clear Lake City Community Association (the HOA). Most of the Houston portion that is considered part of the "Bay Area" lies OUTSIDE of Clear Lake City. Clear Lake City is just a portion within the Houston section of the "Bay Area." Clear Lake City does not define the entire Houston's section that is part of the "Bay Area!" Therefore, referring to the entire Houston portion that is considered part of the Bay Area as "Clear Lake City" is UNACCEPTABLE! Boeing, JSC, Space Center Houston, Ellington Field, Lockheed Martin are all located in Houston and are central to the economic activities and development of the "Bay Area" so they need to be emphasized accordingly. That portion of Houston (outside of Clear Lake City) plays a major role in (economically and culturally) in that area. If "Houston" is to be taken out of the article's text, then all mentioning of other cities should be removed as well. If "Houston" were to be taken out of context from this article, then anything that is in Houston should be taken out of this article accordingly—such as Clear Lake City, JSC, Space Center Houston, and Ellington Field to name a few. Referring to JSC, Space Center Houston, Ellington Field, etc. as part of Clear Lake City is incorrect because they are not located within Clear Lake City! This is the same discussion that we had with the infobox. Whatever myself and other editors commented on the infobox issue apply here as well. There is nothing wrong with the current text. If you disagree, then analyze which sentences bother you and copy and paste them here with your explanation sentence-by-sentence. —RJN (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

As requested, here is a sentence by sentence proposal (please bear in mind that "Clear Lake area" and "Clear Lake City" are not the same thing):

• "The communities stretching from southeast Houston (Clear Lake City area) to Texas City"

"The communities stretching from the Clear Lake Area to Texas City"

• "The Bay Area is typically considered to at least include a small portion of southeast Houston (Clear Lake City area), Pasadena, Webster, La Porte, and neighboring communities."

"The Bay Area is typically considered to at least include a small portion of southeast Houston (Clear Lake area), Pasadena, Webster, La Porte, and neighboring communities."

Actually it would be more clear to say "The Bay Area is typically considered to at least include the part of Houston near Clear Lake, as well as Pasadena, Webster, La Porte, and neighboring communities." But I can live with the previous version.

• "The small portion of southeast Houston (Clear Lake area) includes the master-planned community of Clear Lake City and surrounding areas, as well as the communities south down to League City and Kemah."

"The Clear Lake Area includes numerous communities near the lake."

• "The Houston Metro bus system provides service to southeast Houston (Clear Lake City area) and Pasadena connecting the communities with central Houston."

"The Houston Metro bus system provides service to the Clear Lake area and Pasadena connecting the communities with central Houston."

I take it back. In this context it is probably best to say "The Houston Metro bus system provides service to the southeast Houston and Pasadena connecting the communities with central Houston."

I think the rest of the references to Houston in the article are ok as they are referring to the Houston as a whole rather than to the Clear Lake area portion of the city. In those contexts bringing up the city's name shouldn't cause confusion.

--Mcorazao (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Bear in mind also that we are talking about rewriting the Boundaries section so those sentences are subject to change. Nevertheless, the above changes illustrate the intent. --Mcorazao (talk)

Please provide feedback or I'm going to close this issue. This article has been in limbo for way too long. --Mcorazao (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

How to describe demographics

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Question:

• What is the best way to describe the area's demographics? A related question is how the population numbers should reported in the info box up front.

Current solution:

• Provide demographics for a couple of sample communities in the area and also provide the statistics provided by the BAHEP which covers its member communities.

Key controversies:

• No uniquely authoritative entity provides cummulative statistics.
• BAHEP provides statistics for its member communities but, unless we are restricting to the scope to these communities, these statistics could be considered misleading (also there is some debate about giving info from a promotional organization too much emphasis).

Comments:

• I don't have a good answer on this one. I put in the comparative statistics as an attempt to be NPOV although this makes the section rather confusing. I thought about simply doing my own number crunching by adding up figures from the various communities but a) since I never got consensus on making the article's scope more crisp it was unclear which communities to include, and b) even if I base my calculations on published materials all that crunching could be considered OR. So though I don't like what's there I am not sure what is an alternative that people wouldn't hammer me for. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Proposal: What if we do this? The following table combines a number of statistics. It lists statistics for the BAHEP communities plus most of the other communities around the bay (other data from Census).

Grouping	Total population	Median household income	% White	% Af Am	% Nat Am	% Asian
BAHEP	460,683	$65,808	75.6%	5.0%	0.4%	4.5%
Baytown	78,311	$48,398	64.1%	17.0%	0.4%	2.0%
Texas City	44,765	$43,078	62.4%	28.2%	1.3%	1.1%
La Marque	13,682	$34,841	55.8%	34.7%	0.5%	0.5%
Anahuac	2210	$40,924	68.3%	20.2%	0.1%	0.7%
Beach City	1645	$70,104	96.0%	1.6%	0.1%	0.0%
San Leon	4365	$31,687	80.4%	0.8%	0.8%	7.6%
Bacliff	6962	$32,188	97.8%	1.8%	0.8%	3.0%
Morgan's Point	332	$57,917	88.7%	4.5%	0.9%	0%
Deer Park	28,520	$61,334	90.0%	1.3%	0.4%	1.3%
Total	641,475	$60,561	73.8%	8.5%	0.5%	3.7%

Even to the extent we are arguably missing some population the amount that we are missing should be very small so it makes little difference overall. Is there support for using these calculations? This way we can make the demographics section less confusing.

--Mcorazao (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The BAHEP cities should be individually listed in the table (Clear Lake Shores, Dickinson, El Lago, Friendswood, Houston (Clear Lake City), Kemah, La Porte, League City, Nassau Bay, Pasadena, Seabrook, Taylor Lake Village, Webster) along with the other cities in the table. Then use data from the Census by city, try to avoid using BAHEP for demographic statistics. Postoak (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm ok with this in principle but there is one significant concern. The BAHEP figures take into account Clear Lake City and the areas of Houston immediately around it. This is a non-trivial population so, though, it does not tremendously skew the numbers it does make a noticeable difference (I have seen on some sites of questionable authority that the population is on the order of 50,000 but it wasn't clear what those numbers did or did not include or where they got them from; regardless they did not provide any other demographic info for CLC). I am not sure where to find statistics for CLC-Houston.

Would you be aware of somewhere to find this type of info for CLC-Houston (obviously it doesn't have to be the exact definition BAHEP uses, just some reasonable definition by some authoritative source)?

--Mcorazao (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I found some data that might work: City of Houston: Demographic Data and Index - Census 2000 Data By Super Neighborhoods. It breaks down the info by neighborhood. The info it provides for CLC is

• Population: 43,141
• Median household income: $68,815
• White: 33,584
• Af Am: 2020
• Asian: 4929

The only caveat is that this data is for 2000. It is not hard to come up with a reasonable projection to 2008 (which is what the other data is for) based on other census data for Houston but one could certainly argue that a project like that is WP:OR. Alternatively we could just provide 2000 data for everything. Or we could mix the 2008 and 2000 data and mention that as a note. The difference that would make is not huge.

--Mcorazao (talk) 06:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Revised proposal: OK, here's a revised table using Census data plus the Houston web site.

Grouping	Total population	Median household income	% White	% Af Am	% Asian
Anahuac	2210	$40,924	68.3%	20.2%	0.7%
Bacliff	6962	$32,188	97.8%	1.8%	3.0%
Baytown	78,311	$48,398	64.1%	17.0%	2.0%
Beach City	1645	$70,104	96.0%	1.6%	0.0%
Clear Lake City-Houston	43,141	$68,815	77.8%	4.7%	11.4%
Clear Lake Shores	1205	$67,500	94.9%	3.3%	7.5%
Deer Park	28,520	$61,334	90.0%	1.3%	1.3%
Dickinson	17,093	$41,984	72.3%	10.5%	1.2%
El Lago	3075	$66,223	94.5%	7.8%	1.4%
Friendswood	38,327	$91,887	86.0%	1.9%	6.4%
Kemah	2330	$51,620	75.4%	3.8%	3.5%
La Marque	13,682	$34,841	55.8%	34.7%	0.5%
La Porte	31,880	$55,810	81.4%	6.3%	11.3%
League City	70,657	$80,432	82.6%	6.5%	5.0%
Morgan's Point	332	$57,917	88.7%	4.5%	0%
Nassau Bay	4170	$57,353	89.6%	1.9%	3.9%
Pasadena	151,960	$46,760	64.1%	1.8%	2.0%
San Leon	4365	$31,687	80.4%	0.8%	7.6%
Seabrook	9443	$54,175	88.9%	2.1%	3.3%
Taylor Lake Village	3694	$99,535	92.4%	2.7%	2.1%
Texas City	44,765	$43,078	62.4%	28.2%	1.1%
Webster	9083	$42,385	64.9%	9.0%	5.7%
Total	566,850	$56,827	72.9%	8.3%	3.9%

Honestly I don't consider the Houston web site any more authoritative than the BAHEP site (they both have motivation to bias in favor of themselves) but since it is being used for a much smaller portion of the data I guess one can argue that, accepting the U.S. gov as less biased, the data overall is less biased.

• Many of the cities did not have 2008 estimates in the census data so I had to use 2000 numbers. Had to do the same with the CLC data. At least the largest cities (Pasadena, Baytown, Texas City) had 2008 data.
• Even if we were to compensate for the 2000 / 2008 difference the BAHEP seems to be counting more population. I don't guess it matters specifically but it is an observation.

Do we have consensus on using this?

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the content and presentation of data; I would suggest that the production version have a reference for each city's statistics after the city name. Table format: I would reduce font size to about 85% and shrink height a little. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll reformat. Any dissenters on the content? --Mcorazao (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. If the discussion in the previous section yields a change as to which specific communities should or should not be included the table will be adjusted accordingly. The issue in this section is how the info should be presented, not specifically which individual communities should be included. --Mcorazao (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Closing this one. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Question:

• What is the best way to describe the Bay Area's relationship to the Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown metro area?

Key controversies:

• OMB name is Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown and the OMB provides a crisp definition for this area.
• "Greater Houston", "Houston area", etc. are not official terms explicitly defined by any entity.

Comments:

• Mcorazao's edit summary: "OMB name for the metro area is confusing and, regardless, not commonly used"

RJN's response

If you type the following in Google, it will give you the following results:

• "Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown" (3,970,000)
• "Houston–Galveston" (350,000)
• "Greater Houston" (660,000)

The usage and boundary of "Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown" has been officially defined and cannot be disputed. :This name is used by all media and other reporting agencies. The loosely colloquial term "Greater Houston" is arbitrary, not defined and can be disputed. How can you define "Greater Houston"—what is part of and what is not? This term can mean different things to different people because it is a loose term. Someone can dispute that Austin County and Liberty County are not in "Greater Houston;" however, they cannot dispute that they are not within "Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown."

::This has been discussed at great lengths in 2005. As a result, all Houston area articles mention the official name in the lead section. I had spent a lot of time discussing this back 2005 for Texas and California, and I am not going to debate on this again. —RJN (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

::There is no controversy in this. You are the only person disputing the usage of the official name. Again, this was discussed at great lengths in 2005. As a result, all Houston area articles mention the official name in the lead section. I had spent a lot of time discussing this back 2005 for Texas and California, and I am not going to debate on this again.—RJN (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

How is the name "Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown" confusing to you? The official name of the metropolitan area should be used in all articles and templates because it is indisputable.

You said that "Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown" is not commonly used. The OMB officially changed the name of the metropolitan area in November 2003 so this name is still somewhat new. It was formerly called "Houston-Galveston" prior to November 2003. Galveston was removed from the name because its economy is no longer considered important within the metro area.

If you ever watch local and/or national news when they report on the economy, employment and real estate market, they all report it as "Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown," not "Greater Houston" or any other arbitrary/undefined variants.

The "Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown" is more commonly used than you have originally thought. The name is used widely in all media and reporting agencies—not just by the OMB.

I have posted a couple of links from local and national media, and other reporting agencies to support the usage of Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown:

• Houston Business Journal: Houston home prices to perform well
• Forbes's Best Cities for Jobs — No. 2: Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown
• BusinessWeek's Forty Strong U.S. Metro Economies: Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown
• Inc. Top 100 Companies by Metro Area: Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX
• Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown Real Estate Market Report 2009 (Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University)
• Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown: Market News and RECON (Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University)
• Local news in Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown (Outside.In)
• US Dept of Labor Occupational Employment Statistics
• Energy Star: Builders in Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown
• Texas Annual Cash Report: Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown (Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts)
• Monthly NAICS Employment Estimates for Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown (Texas Workforce Commission)

Above posted by RJN, 23 Oct 2009

So to clarify,

• Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, to me, is just a rather long name and is slightly confusing just on that basis. Granted, I not saying that an intelligent reader unfamiliar with the area couldn't figure it out. I'm just saying that, in the prose, it is a little jarring and it seems (to me) that uninitiated readers would tend to stumble over that and have to think for a sec what that meant.
• It doesn't necessarily surprise me that the OMB name has more hits. Although obviously I have no way to address, factually, the reason for every particular usage I'll just share my thoughts on this.

• Probably the majority of web sites that actually talk about the metro area are either government/business-related sites, or are quoting info from such sites. As such they would tend to use the official term simply to be precise (in the same way that medical sources would tend to use MI whereas the general public always says "heart attack"). The examples you provide mostly fall into this category (i.e. they are contexts where the authors need to be precise because they are quoting specific statistics).

Why are you in denial of the official name of Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown? Accept it and move on as this is not pre-2003. —RJN (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• In most contexts where people are talking about the metro area they will usually just say "Houston" unless they are specifically trying to contrast against the city itself (similarly I often say we are going back to "Austin" when in fact we don't live in Austin). So I would argue that "Houston" is the most commonly used name for the area.
• I still believe that "Greater Houston" or the "Houston Area" are more generally recognized terms.

Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown should be used when it is mentioned for the first time (in the lead section). In the case of this article, it needs to be mentioned once more in the Boundary section. I never said to use the official name throughout the article. All other Houston area articles mention the official name in the first reference (in the lead section). This article should not deviate from that. There was a lengthy discussion about this in 2005. —RJN (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• If you hunt around Wikipedia articles I think you'll find that articles that mention other metro areas generally do not use the OMB name except to specifically mention that this is the OMB designation.

Perhaps, you should hunt and peck around again. More and more WP city articles use the official name of the metro area in the first reference. —RJN (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

My general opinion is that, if there is a circumstance in which it is important to be precise about how the OMB defines the boundaries, then yes the OMB name should be used (though I can't imagine why there would be such a circumstance in this article). But if we are just generally talking about the area then we should use one of the common names for it. In this article we are simply mentioning that the article's topic is generally within this larger area but we are not trying to precisely discuss what percentage of the larger area that the smaller area occupies or other sorts of specific details. So whether or not the reader interprets "Greater Houston" as meaning the OMB's definition or some slightly different definition is really irrelevant.

--Mcorazao (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I'll reiterate a point I have made before. This is not WikiOMB. The OMB is a useful resource but they do not "own" the definition of municipalities or metro areas, and they certainly don't own the people in them. So whereas we should take advantage of this entity as a good authoritative source we should be careful about treating any particular resource as being gospel (i.e. just because we describe things differently from some particular source doesn't mean we are doing something wrong). --Mcorazao (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I was not involved in the earlier discussions. If this has been standardized then I'll follow along.

Let's call this one closed. --Mcorazao (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Cities in infobox

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Question:

• Which cities should be included in the infobox (and if Houston is mentioned, how)?

Current solution:

• Pasadena, Baytown, Clear Lake City (part of Houston/Pasadena), League City, Webster, La Porte

Key controversies:

• Clear Lake City is not an an incorporated municipality so mentioning it is technically incorrect
• Mentioning Houston can potentially be confusing leading the reader to think all of Houston is included

Comments:

• I think having "Clear Lake City" listed in the other cities section of the infobox is incorrect. It isn't a city. The box should simply list Houston and Pasadena or maybe Houston (Clear Lake City) and Pasadena (Clear Lake City). The BAHEP only lists Houston and Pasadena, not Clear Lake City as member cities. [4] Postoak (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what Postoak said above. —RJN (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have to disagree strongly. The previous AfD and the discussions surrounding it demonstrate clearly that there is a potential for substantial confusion if we say Houston is a part of the Bay Area. That is to say, I think that it is worth going the extra mile to ensure that readers don't mistakenly think that we are talking about the entire metro area since this could be an easy mistake to make.

To be honest I would be more comfortable with taking Clear Lake City out of the infobox altogether although, because it actually is one of the larger and more important parts of the Bay Area, that seems a little misleading (though less misleading than simply saying "Houston").

Don't get me wrong. I agree that the current form has some "clunkiness" to it so I'm happy to see other ideas suggested. I know that the BAHEP in some places on its site explicitly mentions the city of Houston as a part of their group. But rather than debate the merits of how they describe their organization I'd rather just say "What makes this article the clearest?"

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Another option is to take out the list of cities altogether to sidestep the issue. But that seems like it would be a shame to do. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Houston *is* a part of the Bay Area, so I'm not sure why putting Houston and Pasadena in the infobox would be misleading. Unless you change the header to something else, I think it would be clearer to the readers to list only city names where only cities should be listed. Postoak (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what Postoak said above. —RJN (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The city of Houston as a whole IS NOT in the Bay Area. That is rather like saying the United Kingdom is in South America because of the Faulkland Islands. Even saying it is partially in South America would be considered erroneous by most people though as a technicality it is true. My point is, technicalities aside, we need to make sure not to mislead. And, if we have to decide whether to err on the side of misleading toward something that is mostly but not entirely true ("Houston is entirely outside the Bay Area") versus erring on the side of something that is mostly but not entirely false ("Houston is entirely inside the Bay Area") we should err toward the mistake that is at least closer to the truth.

Again, I'm open to suggestions. I'm just saying that since it is obvious how someone could misunderstand and think that we are talking about all of Houston it is important to avoid being unclear on that point (which is why I have objected to mentioning Houston over and over in the text).

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Bear in mind that Clear Lake City has a population of something like 60,000 vs. 2.2 million for Houston. That's only about 3% of the city. The area percentage would be similarly small (I don't know an area number for CLC off-hand). --Mcorazao (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

However, Clear Lake City IS NOT a city/municipality. Listing it along with the other true cities is misleading information, simple as that. Change the section then. I'm aware the city of Houston as a whole is not in the Bay Area, but several of the items being referred to in the article is in Houston. Postoak (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what Postoak said above. —RJN (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Proposal: What if we simply put "Parts of Houston" in the infobox without mentioning CLC. Personally I think omitting CLC is a loss but, since there seems to be strong sentiment about possibly being misleading by giving CLC too much emphasis in this context, maybe just doing this is the best compromise. Granted "Parts of Houston" is a little ugly but at least it is unlikely any reader would misinterpret that. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Houston (Clear Lake City) would work. It satisfies the need for an actual city name in the infobox and also specifies the community within Houston that the article references. Also in the economy section, Ellington Airport (Clear Lake) is incorrect, it would be the same as Bush Intercontinental Airport (Greenspoint) - it should be Ellington Airport (Houston). Postoak (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If memory serves me correct, isn't the majority of Ellington technically within Pasadena city limits? I know that Pasadena VFD provides fire coverage for Ellington -- but that might be a mutual aid agreement. --Nsaum75 (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Postoak and Nsaum75 the two statements above. —RJN (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ellington Airport is within the Houston city limits.[5] Postoak (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Postoak, Ellington Airport is within the city limits of Houston and should be mentioned accordingly. —RJN (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. That doesn't imply what you're suggesting. If I didn't know the area I would think you are saying that all of Houston was included (it would be unclear what "Clear Lake" is though I might assume that it is something Houston is part of). If you want to say "Parts of Houston (Clear Lake City)" then I suppose that would be ok (granted, clunky, but I don't think it could be misinterpreted). --Mcorazao (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Houston (Clear Lake City) would work. We have Pasadena listed twice in the infobox, as largest city and again as part of Clear Lake City. I think that would be unclear. Postoak (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both parts; I think these issues are inherent with any article about a populous geographic area that has no official designation, though. I imagine this is similar to debates regarding how to include Kingwood in North Houston. --Nsaum75 (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ellington Airport is in Pasadena (see [6]). The point of the information in the parentheses in the economy section was to identify the location, not to identify the jurisdiction. "Clear Lake" is a more useful identifier because it is relatively small compared to Houston or even Pasadena. Whether or not it is inside Clear Lake or adjacent isn't really relevant here. --Mcorazao (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I found this on the City of Pasadena's website. It seems to exclude the airport, although the website does mention that Pasadena VFD provides services to the area (which might be because of Houston's reluctance to provide services for the Clear Lake area -- this goes back to the whole Clear Lake annexation battle, ie: houston wanted the tax base but not to spend any infrastructure $$$...Houston has successfully defeated repeated attempts to change state law that would require cities to provide infrastructure in areas that they annex. /end rant ;-) ) --Nsaum75 (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

My understanding, admittedly limited, is the HAS, which is of course part of the city of Houston, owns the airport and manages its operations. However it is located in Pasadena. Remember that even Clear Lake City doesn't get most of its services from Houston. It really wouldn't make much difference which jurisdiction Ellington is in from a services standpoint. I think this is a situation where Pasadena figures it would be involved in the services issues anyway so it might as well get the tax revenue. Houston probably figures that by having Pasadena have jurisdiction it gets rid of a lot of headaches it doesn't want (the headaches that it still tries to bury with CLC). So Pasadena presumably gets the taxes and Houston gets the airport revenue. --Mcorazao (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see [7]. It is managed by HAS and is within the Houston city limits. Postoak (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Postoak on this one, that it be listed as Houston. We have two maps and a website showing the airport within Houston city limits; although this is seemingly in conflict with the Handbook of Texas article. --Nsaum75 (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Postoak and Nsaum75 regarding the two statements above. Ellington Field (and JSC) are both located within the city limits of Houston. In addition, Ellington Field and JSC are not part of the master-planned community of Clear Lake City either. —RJN (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I really don't know. Maybe the TSHA is wrong and maybe what I've read before was wrong. For the sake of keeping the peace I have removed the locations from those sites in the Economy section. This really was not important information anyway. I just thought it was helpful but the exact locations and/or the jurisdictional authority were never essential information. --Mcorazao (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ellington Field is in the city limits of Houston and should be mentioned accordingly. Ellington Field and JSC are not part of the master-planned community of Clear Lake City either. —RJN (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree, the CLC development is located adjacent to both both JSC and Ellington. Both existed prior to CLC. [8]. Postoak (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Side note, I love this old brochure...Houston International Airport...homes starting at $16K! Postoak (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)bro

oh wow... I love this brochure--aside from the fact it makes me feel old--it also brings back some memories of things I remember seeing as a kid in the 70s... Totally off-topic, but does anyone remember the mall that was across the street from NASA?? It had a Sakowitz department store in it, among other things. I think the site is currently home to a CVS and Lubys --Nsaum75 (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

totally and completely way off topic (but more interesting), I didn't know that there was a Sakowitz out there, but found this [9]. Apparently a wild deer entered the store and browsed the merchandise :) [10]. Postoak (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

We're far off-topic. Is there another idea of what should go in the info box? --Mcorazao (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, you give me an extended response, yet when I respond were suddenly off topic! :)

(pause)

Excuse me, need to run. See you later, Postoak (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI, there's a map of Clear Lake City located here which should help clarify the boundaries of the community (as established by Freindswood Development) if interested. [11] Postoak (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It is very clear from the maps that Ellington Field and JSC are in the City limits of Houston. They aren't technically a part of Clear Lake as Clear Lake only consists of residential areas. Having said that, it would be okay to mention them in an article about Clear Lake as long as there are reliable sources that state so. I agree that Houston should be listed as "Houston (Clear Lake City)," although I wouldn't mind a "partial" being listed next to Houston. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

So what is the proposal? "Houston, partial (Clear Lake City)"?

--Mcorazao (talk) 05:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

For the infobox, Houston (Clear Lake City) Postoak (talk) 05:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON PROPOSED INFOBOX

What does everyone think about the presentation of Houston (Clear Lake City) in the infobox below? Agree or disagree. Please comment. Thanks! —RJN (talk) 05:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Bay Area
Population	> 460,683 (2,008 est.)

I didn't see this, I think this would work fine. Postoak (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As I've said before, this is too misleading. Whatever is stated needs to avoid implying that the entire city of Houston is included.

--Mcorazao (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you not see the tickmark next to Houston for a note on the next line? See templates such as Fort Bend County or Harris County where cities are partially within the county. You will see a tickmark placed next to the name with an explanation. This has been the standard on many county templates. There is nothing misleading about the current display on the template. What is it with you and your obsession with Clear Lake or Clear Lake City? —RJN (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(moving this down) How would it imply the entire city when you have CLC referenced next to it? Postoak (talk) 05:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That tickmark may be common practice in WP and you may understand that as implying what you are saying. But the average reader will not have a clue what that is implying.

If you recall I suggested that we do not need to mention CLC at all in the infobox. I simply said we need to ensure there is no implication that the whole city of Houston is included. Something like following would be ok for me. --Mcorazao (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Bay Area
Population	> 460,683 (2,008 est.)

Honestly even that is a little bit on the misleading side but I can live with it. --Mcorazao (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Webster should come after La Porte (if we're doing this alphabetically)...But I think I can live with this format. --Nsaum75 (talk) 06:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Nsaum75, the first or second box? —RJN (talk) 06:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually... La Porte then League City...then Webster... Deer Park is pretty sizeable too 30k ppl. --Nsaum75 (talk) 06:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I go with Houston (Clear Lake City) or the previous version without the "partially". Postoak (talk) 06:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Postoak. Thanks for providing an input. —RJN (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Second box.. Houston (Clear Lake City) works for me. Eventually someone will come along and put Clear Lake City in the infobox if we don't include it now. --Nsaum75 (talk) 06:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain where this stands at the moment. The version that RJN has put out on the page right now is ok with me ("Houston (partially) - Clear Lake City").

--Mcorazao (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we have consensus on Houston/Clear Lake in the infobox? Can we close this sub-topic?

--Mcorazao (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with it as is, but I think Clear Lake City (Greater Houston) might now be more appropriate since, note that Clear Lake City (Houston) and Clear Lake City, Pasadena, Texas may soon be merged, see Talk:Clear Lake City, Houston. Postoak (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

So you mean putting "Clear Lake City (Greater Houston)" as the list item? I'm ok with that. But I would think there would be the same objections as their had been in the first place.

--Mcorazao (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ignore the bit above, obviously incorrect. Sorry. Postoak (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is any dissention please register it. Otherwise we'll close this topic.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Going ... going ... gone. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Theatre vs. theater

In American English, "theatre" and "theater" refer to different things. This is not a matter of American vs. British spelling differences.

Theatre refers to a theatrical performance.

Theater refers to a building, room, or outdoor structure for the presentation of plays, films, or other dramatic performances.

Example 1: The University of Houston–Clear Lake hosts several theatre art performances by various groups from the Houston Bay Area.

Example 2: The University of Houston–Clear Lake has a theater in the Bayou Building for film screenings, live theatrical performances, and community lectures.

—RJN (talk) 06:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not very familiar with the distinctions here. Thanks for bringing this up.

Taking a browse around the internet ...

• In general "theatre" is considered an alternative (generally British) spelling. E.g. Dictionary.com treats it this way.
• Several sites mention that there is a distinction. I don't seem to find a clear consensus on what the "true" distinction is.

• [12]) says that theater is used for the venues and for the live performance art forms whereas theatre is used for the motion picture medium (which in a sense contradicts British usage).
• [13] and [14] seem to back up your description.
• [15] indicates that the media (newspapers, magazines) use "theater" exclusively but in artistic contexts "theatre" is used for live performance.

So I'm not sure whom to believe. If the last one is to be believed it would seem that WP falls into the journalistic category with newspapers and magazines. But I don't know that this is authoritative (though I will say that I normally see theater in mass media publications).

I suppose if you feel strongly about it I won't object if you want to change it back.

--Mcorazao (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is far from scientific of published, but this largely a matter of semantics and trying to say any one source has the upper hand over another would be very difficult. My general perception of the differences were to generally mark a place of cultural or historical note... a performance hall. "Theater" would be more akin to auditorium to me... and I've always flagged movie theaters of trying to go too far if they flip their last two letters! My gut instinct is that a campus-based locale for performances is more likely to "feel" like -er unless it's a historical monument or example of classic architecture, etc. ...If you're speaking disambiguation, -er feels safer, but you should always use the official name of a venue if it's specific. A tiny detail, I know, but given the natural of local knowledge in the rest of your recent discussions I had no idea how else to comment on anything! Datheisen (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The following style guides say:

• University of Texas: http://www.utexas.edu./visualguidelines/tricky.html
  • "The preferred word in the United States is “theater,” unless the British spelling is part of a proper name, as in “B. Iden Payne Theatre” or “Lab Theatre.”"
• SUNY New Paltz: http://www.newpaltz.edu./styleguide/editorial/t.html
  • "The spelling for all generic references to auditoriums and the theatrical arts. Use the spelling "Theatre" only if part of proper name of a performing arts facility or company – as is the case with all SUNY New Paltz theatres: Julien J. Studley Theatre, McKenna Theatre, Parker Theatre, Summer Repertory Theatre, as well as the Department of Theatre Arts."
• Buffalo SUNY: http://www.buffalostate.edu./collegerelations/x593.xml
  • "theater—Not theatre, unless part of the official name of an organization: Studio Arena Theatre."

The university style guides say that "theatre" is only to be used in proper names, in American English. Also the Oxford American Dictionary lists "theater" first. So, use theater. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• To those interested, this idea has been suggested by this editor here[16] in category discussion, as an improvement to en.Wikipedia as a whole. Datheisen (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

For my part I'll say that I prefer "theater" (except for the names that spell it otherwise, of course). But as I care more about other issues than this detail I'm going to leave this one alone. Do as you like ...

--Mcorazao (talk) 04:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Cities in infobox

Discussion moved up into the Issue Forum above and added to the issues table --Mcorazao (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

These are important discussions that we need to get closure on. I want to keep the relevant discussions together so we don't keep repeating the same debates. --Mcorazao (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown

Discussion moved up into the Issue Forum above and added to the issues table --Mcorazao (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

These are important discussions that we need to get closure on. I want to keep the relevant discussions together so we don't keep repeating the same debates. --Mcorazao (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Clear Lake City actually traverses four cities

The master-planned residential community of Clear Lake City encompasses four incorporated municipal jurisdictions (cities). The majority of the master-planned community is located within the city limits of Houston. The sections of Brookwood, Village Grove, and Pinebrook (partial) are located in Pasadena. Finally, the section of Clear Lake Forest lies in the city of Taylor Lake Village with a small southern portion in Seabrook. —RJN (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.clccl.org/docs/1990%20CLC%20MAP-full.pdf shows the part in Seabrook as the "Bayport" development that is distinct from "Clear Lake City" WhisperToMe (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The southern tip of the Clear Lake Forest section is actually in Seabrook. I was not referring to the separate "Bayport" property that is distinct from Clear Lake City. If you look at the map that you referred to above and compared it to this one, you will notice that the small southern tip of the Clear Lake Forest section is not within Taylor Lake Village. Then take a look at the Key Map book (if you have access to one), you will find that the southern tip of Clear Lake Forest section is in Seabrook. I don't have a scanner, so there is no way I can scan the Kep Map page on here. —RJN (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me if I am being naive but, is this discussion just informative or is this relevant to revising the article? --Mcorazao (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This is just an informative (fun facts) discussion and is not relevant to the revision of this article. WhisperToMe and I try to be accurate with boundaries of cities and their extra-territorial jurisdictions (ETJs). We have been enjoying such discussions for the past five years or so. —RJN (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Like to close

I'm thinking everybody has gotten bored of the discussions but I'd like to close the rest of the issues in the above forums. I am still holding off certain edits as a result of unsettled questions. I really don't want a consensus of one on any of these questions ...

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, one last request for further feedback on the remaining open issues. The Houston vs. Clear Lake question is the only that there has been recent debate over. I'm not sure that there is an explicit meeting of the minds there but I haven't gotten a response to my lastest suggestion.

Anyway, I'll give these 24 hours more ...

--Mcorazao (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)