Talk:Northwest Hills, Austin, Texas

Almost nothing

Please write the page.Xx236 (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Austin-geo (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Barrow Natural Preserve

@Yoninah: Thank you for your edits, I appreciate your fixes. I hopefully fixed your clarification request with my recent update. There are two entrances to Barrow Natural Preserve (see here and here). The two sources I added in the article cite the two addresses, so I made sure to double check them on Google Maps too. Austin-geo (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Transportation section as WP:NOTTRAVEL

Let's see what WP:NOTTRAVEL says:

"Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of the "best" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. While travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should only list those that are actually in the city. If you do wish to help write a travel guide, your contributions would be welcome at our sister project, Wikivoyage."

The infrastructure section does not violate this WP principle. It does not mention the "... telephone number or street address of the 'best' restaurants" ... or the "prices" of things. I'm using official information from Austin's transportation. Northwest Hills has several bus lines that connect to notable places (i.e. "Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria"), and those are cited in the sources. There are no mention of "distant attractions" that are not in Austin (i.e. "a Wikipedia article for a city should only list those that are actually in the city"). All of them are part of the Northwest Hills bus lines. Plus, you left the section unsourced after you erased the info. Please be more careful when doing reckless deletions like you did. Austin-geo (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I propose that the section "Infrastructure" be trimmed to one sentence (about the local bus company). The section contains trivial detail about bus routes and road toles. I removed the information, per WP:NOTTRAVEL, but User:Austin-geo reveted this edit. WP:UNDUE seems to apply as well. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Because you removed without consensus, hence why you should read WP:RECKLESS. Austin-geo (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Independent, reliable sources

The following websites are all real estate agents and are not independent, reliable sources: outlawrealty.com, westaustin.com, austinhomelistings.com, jbgoodwin.com, realtyaustin.com, redfin.com, and selectaustin.com. Sections that are exclusively referenced to these sources should either be rewritten and properly sourced or removed. Mduvekot (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I support this idea. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Please explain why. Don't just tell, show. And please don't cite a Wikipedia essay... Austin-geo (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality

The offical website of the subject, as listed in the infobox, nwaca.org/ states on their main page: Our purpose is to preserve, promote, and enhance the exceptional and unique character of our neighborhood (emphasis mine). I propose that the nwaca is not the subject of the article and should be removed as the official website per WP:NOTPROMOTION. Mduvekot (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - The website is a neighborhood association with bylaws and dues. It's not an official government website. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - Simply added the link of the NWACA to the infobox, and now you're making claims about the "subject" of the article. Remove it if it bothers you so much. Austin-geo (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

"Not in Northwest Hills" claims

@Magnolia677: What the fuck just happened. Nice job deleting portions of the article without exercising some WP:COMMONSENSE. There were many mass deletions under claims that the places cited are not in Northwest Hills. Northwest Hills is divided by Spicewood Springs Road on its north, Texas State Highway Loop 360 ("Capital of Texas Highway") on the west, Ranch to Market Road 2222 ("RR 2222") on the south, and Texas State Highway Loop 1 ("Mopac") on the east. I cited this source, which states: Northwest Hills/Far West is bounded by MoPac on the east, state Highway 360 on the west, RR 2222 on the south, and Spicewood Springs Road on the north. Yet you went on and deleted it anyways. Don't be lazy and please read the sources.

Allen Park is on 6413 Westside Drive. Same goes for the Jewish Community Center, the Texas State SBDC, Indeed, Stillhouse Hollow Nature, Barrow Nature Reserve, Bull Creek District Park, North Cat Mountain Greenbelt, Shinoak Valley Greenbelt, Austin Oaks, Old Quarry Library, Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, and the Glen Rose Limestone, which runs FROM the Mt. Bonnell to Westover (which means it CROSSES through Northwest Hills). Again, use some common sense. The schools outside of Northwest Hills (you finally got it right) are notable because Northwest Hills residents are mapped to them by the public school system. The source states some residents from the neighborhood attend there. The "excessive details" claim about the pool is a highly opinionated claim. It was the description of the place and the developments done by the neighborhood/city to fix it.

These are all within the "Northwest Hills" boundaries, as established by the sources (read the bold above).

Now, as far as using real estate sources, you should stop being WP:RECKLESS and submit them at WP:RSN. I'm using the sources to describe the neighborhood, and trying my best to use a neutral tone. Austin-geo (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Austin-geo: First, no insults or swearing. None. Be civil.

Your source for the boundaries of Northwest Hills was unreliable, as are so many of the real estate sites you used. Thankfully, you also used Google Maps here, which is a much more reliable source for boundaries, and is the source I used to discover that most of the locations you added to the article are outside Northwest Hills. If you can find a source more reliable than Google Maps to outline the boundaries of Northwest Hills, feel free to add content back to the article. I'm also concerned that you are a single-purpose account, which makes me wonder if you have a professional relationship with Northwest Hills. Do you? Magnolia677 (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Which locations I cited are outside of Northwest Hills? Please be specific/stop making stuff up.

If my sources are unreliable, go to WP:RSN. I believe I was using the sources neutrally, and from what I know, they are established real estate agencies. Tell me which area of WP:RS my sources violate.

I do not have a professional relationship with Northwest Hills. I've visited NW Hills and wanted to write about the neighborhood. I revealed in the DYK nomination that I workout a neighborhood facility, but that's about it. I want to get more involved in Austin-related articles, but with reckless/authoritative editors around, I don't think I will. Austin-geo (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Austin-geo I'm sorry if you don't feel that you're welcome to contribute. You are. That you're not welcome is the last thing I would want to convey. Please don't take my edits that way. But I also don't need to go to WP:RSN to find out if a real estate agent is a reliable source. Seven real estate agents as sources is excessive, and it is obvious, to me at least, that editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking is lacking in all seven of those sources. Furthermore, the inclusion of that many real estate agents suggest that there is a commercial interest at work here, which we should all work towards eliminating in order to arrive at a neutral article. Can we not agree that the material sourced to websites that seeks to promote the area in order to make a profit should be sourced to independent, reliable sources instead? Mduvekot (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mduvekot:

• "But I also don't need to go to WP:RSN to find out if a real estate agent is a reliable source." - You're making a claim that they are unreliable, but fail to show me which point within WP:RS it violates. Show me where and we can discuss (I address the real estate sources in more detail below).

• "Seven real estate agents as sources is excessive" – WP:IDONTLIKEIT

• "that editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking is lacking in all seven of those sources" – Which facts within the sources do you think are wrong? I did not make any WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims, as far as I know. And I tried my best to keep promotional language off Wikipedia (yet you guys flagged the article for that anyways, even though you failed to show where the supposed promotional language was). Show me where the sources are wrong. In addition, these are established real estate agencies. WP:RS generally suggests to avoid promotional sources, but they are explicit about using them for "contentious" claims. The updates made in this article do not fit that description.

• "Furthermore, the inclusion of that many real estate agents suggest that there is a commercial interest at work here, which we should all work towards eliminating in order to arrive at a neutral article." – Prove it. I'm interested in Austin, though particularly in Northwest Hills because I love the neighborhood. I already disclosed why I'm interested in the neighborhood. And I'm willing to provide information about my employment to Wikipedia (not to you directly) if needed.

• "which we should all work towards eliminating in order to arrive at a neutral article" – How was this article non-neutral? The real estate sources? Which claims in specific? The "affluent" claim was removed by another editor before you and I'm perfectly fine removing it.

• "Can we not agree that the material sourced to websites that seeks to promote the area in order to make a profit should be sourced to independent, reliable sources instead?" – Since when are "for profit" sources unreliable? How was my language in the article "promotional"? See WP:PROPAGANDA: "An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." See my WP:RS point on "contentious" claims too.

Austin-geo (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Austin-geo Please don't misrepresent what I wrote. A commercial source, like the New York Times, is not unreliable per se, it it unreliable when it has a commercial interest in what it writes about. I think the term for that is conflict of interest. Mduvekot (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mduvekot: Per WP:RS: "Questionable sources (i.e. promotional ones) are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties ..." Where/how was the information in the article "contentious"? Per WP:PROMOTIONAL: "An article can report objectively about such things [that are promotional], as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." Austin-geo (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Austin-geo What I have proposed is that e-commerce links should be replaced with non-commercial reliable sources if available, per WP:RS. You are wrong to suggest that my arguments are not grounded in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and I wish that you would cease to argue that point. This page is for discussing how to improve the article, not for discussing my supposed failure to comprehend Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Take that to my talk page if you have to. Mduvekot (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mduvekot: Exactly, IF available. Instead of deleting entire sections, help me find more non-commercial reliable sources. I'm perfectly OK with that. What I'm not OK with is reckless deletion and editors bending the rules. WP:PROMOTIONAL shows my sources are within policy, just as long as I keep the language in NPOV (which I believe I did). I'll keep bringing these points up here in the article's talkpage because they are relevant (editors deleting information without consensus and ignoring what the policies permit). Austin-geo (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Austin-geo I think we're done with this conversation. I have no interest in exchanging insults and discussing how deficient my understanding of policy is. Let's end this now, before things become unpleasant. I bear no ill will toward you. Please keep that in mind. Mduvekot (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Much better

@Magnolia677: Now this is an edit I completely understand. Actual copyediting, not indiscriminate deletions without consensus. FYI, you might want to check this source for the boundaries. This means more than half of your "Not in Northwest Hills claims" are wrong. Austin-geo (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a real estate advertisement in a local paper, and all the sources cited are real estate websites. Interestingly, this real estate site shows different boundaries, much smaller than the ones you claim. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Check this other source out. It says that Highland Hills is a neighborhood in the Northwest Hills area/neighborhood, yet cites it way off from those maps you mention. It cites it between RR 2222 and Mopac (Google Maps here). I'm not 100% familiar with the entire area, but my guess is there is a "Northwest Hills" portion, just like there are other portions (or "small neighborhoods"), inside the bigger "Northwest Hills neighborhood" conglomerate. Hence why the boundaries are messed up depending on the sources. This source also states there are "dozens of neighborhoods" within Northwest Hills, which I think points to the fact that the area is probably the larger one I suggest. What do you think? Austin-geo (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I just emailed NWACA to see if they can point me in the right direction... I asked them if it was the larger boundary of Spicewoods, Mopac, Capital of Texas, and RRRR, or the other sources you've provided to me. Hopefully they can point me to some sources that I can later post here. Austin-geo (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Define area boundaries by census data

I've had a look at where the boundaries for North West Hills are, according to governement sources. I found this: North West Hills is part of Austin's Council Distric 10. It is bound by MoPAc Expy in the east, Spicewood Springs in the north, Mesa Drive in the west and RR2222 in the south. It contains census tracts 17.18, 17.51 and 17.52 It borders Allandale in the east, Westover Hills in the north, Bull Creek in the west and Highland Park in the south.

References

Note that this does not correspond to what google maps shows[8] because it google includes an area west of Mesa drive and excludes the area north of Far West Boulevard, and curbed adds the area btween Mesa Drive and Highway 360, the entirety of what austintexas.gov calls Bull Creek. I think austintexas.gov is right about this Google and curbed.com are probably wrong. Does that work for everyone? Mduvekot (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Interesting, thank you for providing this. If you read the section above, it says that Highland neighborhood is part of Northwest Hills. But if the government source say Northwest Hills doesn't go past Mesa, I guess that's it? Here is what the NWACA replied via email:

  Hi ____, The boundaries shown are correct for our Neighborhood association as a whole. When our neighborhood was originally developed, it was done in smaller pieces or subdivisions and they each had a name. One was NW Hills and then the others grew around it. When the NA was formed, they elected to include all the subdivisions within those geographic boundaries which people in Austin had collectively begun to call Nw Hills generally. You will still here some people say they live in the Cat Mountain section or Highland Hills, etc. but for purposes of our Civic Neighborhood Association, we are all called NW Hills. — NWACA Secretary

My question is ... what do we do when the government calls it one thing, and Austinites (some sources I provided) call it another? Austin-geo (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

We are not the arbiter of truth. We summarize what reliable sources say. You could simply say that the government says one thing and the nwaca says another. Note though, that the stated goal of the nwaca is incompatible with Wikipedia: it is to "promote our neighborhood". So that places a constraint on usability of the nwaca website as a source for the bounday claims; it isn't true because the nwaca says so, it is only verifiable that the nwaca makes that particular claim. Mduvekot (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I've reached out to them asking them to provide reliable, third-party sources with the boundaries they claim. They told me that "the NA boundaries were created by the legal docs filed with the Secretary of State when nwaca was created as an association." I'll wait and see what they come back with, but for now we should stick to the Mopac, Spicewoods Springs, Mesa, and 2222 boundary you provided. Austin-geo (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)