Talk:Cinco Ranch, Texas

Untitled

I question whether the Randolph Foster listed on the Cinco Ranch entry is the same as the Randolph Foster to which the linked article refers.--Rpclod (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cinco Ranch expands

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki page, not community website

This needs to be pared down a lot. Lists of amenities in every section, and the tone is that of an ad or website for the community. Wiki pages are not intended to be such. That whole section could be pared down to a single sentence like "The various sections of the Cinco Ranch master-planned community offer a variety of amenities including x,y, and z.". This is not encyclopedic or notable content.204.65.34.129 (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cinco Ranch, Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cinco Ranch, Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just state that the area as defined by the CDP does not include the expensions? There are news articles that list the population of Cinco Ranch the same as the census. I take it that you live in this community? see https://cw39.com/news/money/cinco-ranch-named-one-of-the-20-best-places-to-live-in-the-us-study-finds/ Patapsco913 (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes to article about a planned community

Hi Patapsco913, I'd like to talk about your changes to Cinco Ranch, Texas. Cinco Ranch is a planned community but the changes re-introduced an error by conflating it with the CDP of the same name. The Cinco Ranch CDP is about half of the community—visually you can compare the map of the community and map of the CDP. The change removed half a sentence that clarified the distinction between the community and the CDP, and inserted 2020 demographics for only the CDP. The CDP isn't a good reflection of the greater community—most of Cinco Ranch is in Fort Bend County, which is one of the fastest-growing counties in the US and regularly listed the most ethnically diverse in the US, and a smaller part is in Harris County which is similarly diverse, growing, and changing.

There is a way to get demographic information, if racial composition is important for the article, but it is a bit of work and might be considered original research. To do it, you need to identify all the census block groups in both counties for the community, download the data for each, and then combine the data from all of them. I started down this path, then stopped when I thought it was original research and when I realized I could only get ACS 5-Year Estimates for census data at the tract level, and actually needed the more-granular block groups.

I actually reached out to Buaidh last month for guidance about this because fundamentally this is a question about maintaining something Rambot did decades ago, and how to address it now in cases like this where CDP is no longer a meaningful unit for a community that was being planned and developed back then. Here's my question to Buaidh and here's the response.

Hello I really should've left a note about the CDP versus community on the article's Talk page! Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I could create a separate page for the CDP but the name on this page needs to be changed to something like Cinco Ranch (planned community). The map in the header is also incorrect; and the list of CDPs for Texas and template for the CDP link to this page. Be forewarned though that this page will likely be merged again as there are a number of irascible hyper editors who do not like pages such as this (with separate pages for the CDP and the entity...happens a lot with military bases, schools, and planned communities). Is the FIPS code and GNIS ID correct? Probably better to note the discrepancy in the demographics and move the census derived information down out of the top header? Not sure where the map is from you linked. Do you have a legitimate source that we can add? Patapsco913 (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If every CDP has its own wiki article, then yes I guess a new article should be created for the CDP. Currently, Cinco Ranch, Texas is about the planned community of Cinco Ranch and has been since 2005, when a Cinco Ranch (Houston) article that was moved to the Cinco Ranch, Texas stub. The stub was holding information about the CDP to get the article started, but since 20 years ago it's been about the community not the census. If you create the new wiki article for the CDP, you can move the map in the header as well because yes, it's not correct.
You make an interesting observation, that this is an issue with articles about several types of communities like military bases and other planned communities. Putting data about only part of a community is incorrect. I like your suggestion to create a new article and remove the CDP census data from this one. I think that works like this:
1. Roll back your changes so that the Demographics section again says this: 'Cinco Ranch first appeared as a census designated place (CDP) in the 2000 U.S. Census, which covers a total area of about 4.9 square miles. However, the Cinco Ranch planned community is now complete at 8,092 acres (12.64 square miles) and 15,098 homes so data specific to the CDP no longer reflects the entire community. The area to the far west of Houston continues to grow and diversify.'
2. Remove the CDP map in the header.
3. Check the FIPS code and GNIS ID as you mentioned, and correct them if they are not for the community.
4. Create a new article named 'Cinco Ranch (CDP)' or similar. In that new article, put the CDP map, the FIPS code and GNIS ID as appropriate, and the 2020 census data of race and ethnicity. If the new article looks a little too stubby, you could also add other information that the census collects for each CDP such as education, housing, education, transportation, employment status and industry.
5. On the community article, I could link to the CDP article to make sure if a reader was looking for the CDP they find it.
6. I will add a note on the article's Talk page about the two articles, so that other editors will know about the issue and the two articles.
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(missed one..!)
4.5 Redirect the links on list of CDPs for Texas from the community article to the new CDP article, and remove the CDP template from the community article.
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are overthinking this. It is probably better to just explain what is happening in the body of the article: "The census defines the area as a CDP but the community has since grown...." The background info you are adding about the area will just be duplicated at the Cinco Ranch CDP article since it is about the community...not just the census stats; and you need reliable sources for both the map and the area which I do not see (was the area 4.9 sq miles in 2000?). The census is constantly adjusting the areas of CDPs according local custom so you are probably ahead of the game. Better to be creative and incorporate them together. Patapsco913 (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, originally it did explain how the CDP is only about half of the community. That's why it's important to undo the changes. The expansion of the community happened in phases (since it is a planned community) and that expansion is outlined in the History section of the article. The References give citations to the Cinco Ranch I and II websites, which have maps, but you can find maps of the community in multiple places including many of the websites cited in the Government and Infrastructure section.
I just peeked over there, and I think you moved it to Geography? The Geography section needs to discuss its unique geographical, geological, climate, etc., elements, like the Buffalo Bayou and its channels that flow through the community, the prairie grassland, native animals and birds, things like that, not census data. But I wasn't going to do the Geography until I finished Government and Infrastructure since some of infrastructure is addressing geography....
I've been working pretty hard to get this article correct and complete, and was planning on not updating the introduction and info panel until the end. However, I can see that's caused confusion and I don't see a way to discuss half the racial makeup of a community, or even why that would be critical for this article when an article created just for the CDP information is something that we could do. I'm happy to do steps 1–6 if you'd prefer to not do it yourself. I just assumed your interest was in census data of race and ethnicity for US CDPs, so I assumed you'd prefer to take that on yourself?
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikipedian-in-Waiting: Cool, let's move to the talk page for the page rather than here.
Definitely add the source you used in the map (No one is going to look through all your other sources to find it). Also add the source stating what the new area is rather than the census area. Do we know what is the expanded population? Patapsco913 (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cinco Ranch is 8,092 acres.
- https://www.chron.com/business/article/katy-s-cinco-ranch-to-see-an-expansion-1716809.php
- https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/newland-and-sekisui-house-form-joint-venture-to-acquire-real-estate-development-projects-in-the-united-states-103996423.html
- https://www.chron.com/neighborhood/katy/news/article/Foster-named-Cinco-Ranch-Realtor-relations-manager-9440247.php
Cinco Ranch's boundaries are larger than the CDP.
- https://www.cincoranch.life/info.php?pnum=35cd1e4c4d043b
- https://www.mycincoranch.com/info.php?pnum=31
Cinco Ranch has 15,098 homes: 8,740 in Cinco Ranch I and 6,358 in Cinco Ranch II. It was built out years ago, so I will need to search archives for news articles and press releases from then. For now:
- https://www.mycincoranch.com/blog.php?view=blog&id=117&ssrch=6,358#sr
- https://www.neighborhoods.com/blog/what-its-like-living-in-cinco-ranch-katy
- https://www.har.com/blog_77854_houston-top-master-planned-community--cinco-ranch
I'm pretty committed to getting and keeping this article accurate. Would you like to create a new article for the CDP, as I thought you were originally suggesting? Or are we at an impasse, and we should request a third opinion with a dispute resolution request? Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I create an article for the CDP it will include a lot of the information that you have just added. CDPs are unincorporated communities as defined by the census. You are stating that the community is larger but list no news articles showing what is its current expanded population is. All I can find is articles using the census figures. I am trying to help you out.Patapsco913 (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a community, there must be some population figures for the expanded community (especially since the area expended from 4.9 to 12.6 square miles). I cannot find a news source indicating the new expanded population: all I can find is news articles linking to the census numbers. By leaving this information out, you would be introducing an inaccuracy. Best to add some info regarding the geography size from reliable sources. Patapsco913 (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think my changes pretty much explain that the census numbers do not include the entire community as defined by you and seemingly, a bunch of links to real estate companies, websites, and brokers. News articles seem to use the census population figures provided.
- https://www.newsweek.com/50-best-places-live-america-1580719
- https://cw39.com/news/money/cinco-ranch-named-one-of-the-20-best-places-to-live-in-the-us-study-finds/ Patapsco913 (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that "Best places" articles and the like from nationwide publications scrape their information, uncited, from wikipedia. I can, and have, shown maps and articles that state the geographic boundaries of the community, it's growth over time, and the exact number of homes. Underlying this dispute, though, might be the question of whether Cinco Ranch, Texas is an article about a community, as the article has been since 2005, or if it should be repurposed back to a stub about a CDP.
However, I believe what should not happen is to present misleading information. For example, Cinco Ranch is part of Katy ISD and demographic information is available for Katy ISD. It would be incorrect, though, to add that to the article about the Cinco Ranch community because the boundaries of Katy ISD are not the boundaries of the community. The same is true with the CDP.
I'm not going to undo your edits because you would likely just undo my undo. I tried to open a dialogue with you, thinking the changes were just a good-faith oversight. I agreed with your initial idea for a second article, and offered to help with that. And yet here we are, still in disagreement. I've asked for a third opinion, so let's both pause and see where that leads. If we can't get a third opinion, or we find ourselves in disagreement with it, then we can progress to the next stage of the dispute resolution process. Agreed?
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have submitted a request for a third opinion, which you can view at Wikipedia:Third opinion.
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey no problem, the items you need to find are some neutral sources that define the boundaries of the community as you describe and not links to real estate websites. A population number for the expanded community would be a start (population figures from news articles only show census numbers). CDPs are unincorporated communities as defined by the census. If what you say is true, there is no reason that the evolution of the community can be mentioned including demographics which I feel I have encapsulated in my edits. Cheers!Patapsco913 (talk)
Hi @Wikipedian-in-Waiting, @Patapsco913, here to give a 3O. Wikipedian-in-Waiting, it would be really nice if you would be willing to provide diffs of the disputed edits in situations like this along with your 3O filing, since both of you have made a lot of edits to the page recently and I can't tell at a glance which are relevant to this discussion. Speaking in general about the disagreement as far as I'm getting from the TP discussion here, I'm basically in agreement with Patapsco about sourcing—Wikipedian-in-Waiting, even if you personally know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Cinco Ranch is much larger than the census figures would indicate, that doesn't neccessarily suggest that the article should say that at this point. It's really a question of having good RS to that effect, and out of the sources you cited above, I would say that only Chron really lives up to that. That gives support for the 8,092 acres figure but that's already in the article from the looks of it. Developers and realtors (even in the medium of a press release) are not held to as high a standard as a major newspaper in their online PR and things, and plus they have something of a motivation to inflate those kinds of figures; legal sources (e.g. held by the county/counties) would give more credible support, but they would also be primary sources and thus only really useful for limited, supplementary, pure-fact kinds of claims. Especially in order to support splitting the article, a strong source pool is needed, defending the idea that not only is the community clearly distinct from the CDP but the world at large cares enough about that that there's at least a few good, secondary RS to that precise effect. Patapsco is right: people will show up and fight that split just on the basis that two articles seem overly similar at a glance, and you would have to be ready with comprehensive RS to make a good counterargument. You might want to read WP:RS and WP:PSTS, and maybe browse through RSN for a while, if you haven't done those things already. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 01:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mesocarp, I wanted to acknowledge your message. I will respond tomorrow with the differences and better resources. During my talk with the other editor, I was mostly concerned about explaining the issue than immediately finding excellent sources. I will do that tomorrow, and put them here for you, with a clear explanation of the issue as I see it. Thanks again for being available for a 3O. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, I'll take a look when you're ready. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 01:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for giving me a moment to collect some higher-quality citations.
As a reminder: The crux of the disagreement is whether the Cinco Ranch CDP shares the same boundaries as the Cinco Ranch planned community. My contention is that the community is substantially larger than the CDP.
I'll provide evidence of its greater size first, and then I'll summarize some additional information about where the CDP information started, previous advice that was sought and taken, the reversals that happened recently, and why it's important, in case that proves helpful.
The community much larger than the CDP:
  • CDP: 4.9 square miles (3,136 acres, 12.69094 square kilometers), with 16,899 people; map for reference.
  • Community: 12.64 square miles (8,092 acres, 32.74716 square kilometers), with about 15,000 homes; map for reference.
The community itself provides maps of their boundaries. As discussed in the wiki article, the community manages itself in two halves (Cinco Ranch I and II), and both provide maps showing identical boundaries:
Reporting from the Houston Chronicle (screenshots here, to reference if you don't have access to the newsbank):
  • Two 2023 articles states Cinco Ranch is more than 8,000 acres.
  • 2017 article, written as the last homes from one builder were being built and sold, put the size at 8,100 acres.
Information from the developers:
Additional info: Historical context of the wiki article's issue:
In 2002, User:Ram-Man and his bot User:Rambot created thousands of stubs for US towns and counties, and that's how the Cinco Ranch, Texas article began. However, months after Ram-Man created the article, the planned community's developer bought an additional 1,828 acres, to expand the boundaries of the community to hold another 4,000 homes. Details about this expansion are cited in the wiki article here. And, there was another expansion in 2007, with details cited here. Development was finished in 2020, so we now know exactly the borders and number of homes in the community.
After Ram-Man created the article, it continued to be developed over the next decades, as an article about the planned community, not the much smaller CDP, and in 2005 a duplicate article named Cinco Ranch (Houston) was merged into it, thus solidifying its topic as about the community and not specific to only a small CDP.
Current work, with expert advice sought and taken:
The article was missing details, had some marketing material from long ago, and had some errors, so I began working on it in May 2025 for about a month; you can see that revision difference here. I was concerned about the CDP versus community issue myself, so I reached out to User:Buaidh because they are a very experienced Wikimedian and a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Census group that tried to solve some of the other issues that have now come from Ram-Man and Rambot's CDP articles. You can see my request for guidance here, and the response here. Following their guidance, I updated the infobox and also changed the Demographics section to remove the CDP-only information and add a statement as suggested.
Recent reversal:
On June 19, User:Patapsco913 deleted an explanation of the difference between the CDP and community, thus conflating the two, and then added back just race/ethnicity data from the CDP. I assumed it was a good-faith mistake, and left a message on their page (which they've moved here) explaining the difference and linking to the conversation with User:Buaidh. This then set off a flurry of changes from Patapsco913, deleting sentences, moving their census data to unrelated sections of the article, and marking these substantial changes as only "copyedit" or ""add". Then, they started flagging content. I offered several solutions that I could think of, then opened a request for a third opinion as the first step toward getting a dispute resolution.
Why this matters:
We have demographic information from sources around the community. For example, Cinco Ranch is served by Katy Independent School District, and the school district has published demographic information about their student body. The community is mostly in Fort Bend County, and there is demographic information about the county. But the boundaries of those two bodies do not match match with Cinco Ranch, so it is inaccurate to say that Katy ISD's, or Fort Bend County's, demographics are the same as Cinco Ranch's. The same is true for the CDP. Patapsco913 seems to be mostly concerned about racial/ethnic data, and there is a way to get that. As I explained to him, it would require compiling data from multiple Census block groups, not just dropping partial data from the CDP alone.
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a reminder: The crux of the disagreement is whether the Cinco Ranch CDP shares the same boundaries as the Cinco Ranch planned community. My contention is that the community is substantially larger than the CDP.

That may be the abstract root of the dispute, but I think what I (and probably Patapsco etc.) ultimately care about is what is actually done with the page specifically. The level of support required for adding a brief in-text attributed statement about something is lower than for making an entirely new article (like if you were going to split this one), as an example. It would be a lot easier for me to say something concrete if you were to say, for example, "I think such-and-such text should be included in the article in such-and-such a place," or, "Such-and-such text doesn't belong in the article and should be changed to this other text," etc. That's more what I was looking for by asking for diffs of what edits are under dispute. As I said before, even if you were to convince me personally that the community is much larger than the CDP—something I don't really have much reason to doubt, honestly, it seems likely—whether I think anything in particular should be done with the article will depend entirely on what sources would be needed to support it and whether or not we have them. We have to keep our own personal view out of the picture.

The community much larger than the CDP:
<sources follow etc.>

I don't feel comfortable basing any conclusions directly on maps, especially not from a private group like a POA. Not only does that raise serious questions about how carefully the maps were made, but also any use of them to support in-article text intrinsically requires a relatively serious degree of interpretation—all together that seems like original research to me and not necessarily the most cautious sort. Citing a map you made yourself(?) is far more in that direction, I would say.
In a similar vein, as I said before I would be extremely reserved about any use of direct statements by developers—at best what you linked to might support a brief statement like, "Newland claimed in 2020 that there were 15,098 homes in the community," or similar (note that we should not just take their word for things like that). However, if another editor were to object to the inclusion of a statement like that in the article on the grounds that the sourcing didn't demonstrate sufficient notability or was too advertising-y or the like, I don't know that I would be that inclined to oppose them.
The Houston Chronicle articles give support, I would say, for saying, e.g., that the community had over 16,000 residents and exceeded 8,000 acres in size in 2023. I'm still not entirely sure what the implications of that would be for what you or Patapsco want to do with the article though.

We have demographic information from sources around the community. For example, Cinco Ranch is served by Katy Independent School District, and the school district has published demographic information about their student body. The community is mostly in Fort Bend County, and there is demographic information about the county. But the boundaries of those two bodies do not match match with Cinco Ranch, so it is inaccurate to say that Katy ISD's, or Fort Bend County's, demographics are the same as Cinco Ranch's. The same is true for the CDP. Patapsco913 seems to be mostly concerned about racial/ethnic data, and there is a way to get that. As I explained to him, it would require compiling data from multiple Census block groups, not just dropping partial data from the CDP alone.

Any efforts of this sort would need to be very careful not to fall afoul of WP:SYNTH. I'm not entirely sure what you have in mind, but when I hear "compiling data from multiple Census block groups" I feel a little nervous. That sounds more to me like the kind of thing we should let secondary sources handle, and then cite them, instead of doing it ourselves. It depends on the specifics though of course.
Just in general, I feel kind of inclined to say, my experience has been that it works much better to just ignore everything you personally think about a subject and just allow whatever pool of good-quality secondary RS you can find to lead the way. Then you can be confident that whatever you're doing is well-sourced. Occasionally you might find that you have reason to cite some bare fact from (trustworthy) primary RS to flesh out a passage, but the secondary sources can guide you to the whole article structure, what the appropriate weight to give each part is, etc. If you start by wanting to include a personal conclusion of yours in an article and start casting around for sources to that effect, it can make you inclined to reach a bit where sourcing is concerned, at least my experience has been. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 01:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the considered opinion.
I do think that a separate wiki article, just about a CDP, would not be very helpful or useful and I only presented that idea to Patapsco when they seemed determined to have the CDP information somewhere—my concern was, that we don't add incomplete and misleading partial data to the Cinco Ranch, Texas article, but where the CDP data belonged was not my primary concern.
I also think compiling data from Census block groups might be original research, which is why I chose not to do it, but explained the process to Patapsco in case their desire was that articles have correct Census data (that was the only way it could be done, as far as I can tell).
I still think Buaidh had the best solution, which is to remove the CDP-specific data and provide a general statement about the community at large, since community-wide data is not available. Patapsco mentioned that the problem faced here is rather common, that many wiki articles contain incomplete demographic information because it is just for a sliver of the community (being CDP-specific). I was dismayed that we collectively know we're introducing errors, and yet continue to do so. I don't understand holding onto that tradition in our articles when it is no longer beneficial or factual. It is, perhaps, an issue that some project should address.
I will take a few days to consider your thoughts, and to give Patapsco time to respond if they wish. I may continue to work through the dispute resolution process, but I do appreciate the time you spent on this.
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Wikipedian-in-Waiting and User:Mesocarp (thanks for the input). The changes I made noted that the present area of the community is larger than the CDP ("The area defined by the census indicates a population of 16,899 in 2020 and does not include the expansions since 2000") although I cannot find a reliable source stating as such. People that read the article should be able to parse that out since it is clearly stated. I cannot find any news articles addressing the expanded population: most info is from either real estate websites or the Cinco Ranch HOA (see https://www.corcoran.com/neighborhoods/guide/houston-tx-and-suburbs/cinco-ranch). The census population is listed as 19,139 as of 2023. You would have to delve down to the Block Group level if you went the census tract analysis route given that the community is bisected by portions of Houston proper (seems to be the apartment complexes and retail stores). As far as the geographic expansions (some of which are not contiguous per your map), they seem to be indistinguishable from other surrounding areas with the only connection being the sharing of the same developer/HOA.Patapsco913 (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Patapsco913, which is your primary concern?
  • To have every CDP documented in wikipedia
  • To have the racial/ethnic makeup of every community mentioned in their respective wiki articles
  • To have general demographic makeup documented across wikipedia and in this article in particular, to give a sense of the residents; it could include the other information that used to be provided but has now fallen off from many wiki articles, such as educational attainment, household income, employment, housing, and healthcare
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedian-in-Waiting Why not just leave the CDP demographics in the article with an explanation that the area has since grown in area and population; and find a reliable source (not info from either of the two Cinco HOAs, a real estate company, or a a real estate website) defining the extended population and area? I assume you live there or work for the HOA given your passion, but we cannot just add what we know, we need to add what we can demonstrate with reliable sources. This addition only affects the demographic section.Patapsco913 (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds reasonable to me too.

I was dismayed that we collectively know we're introducing errors, and yet continue to do so. I don't understand holding onto that tradition in our articles when it is no longer beneficial or factual. It is, perhaps, an issue that some project should address.

In a way, this is just intrinsic to Wikipedia, and always has been. Many articles across the encyclopedia have information that might be wrong or out-of-date, but the RS just haven't caught up. That's not really our problem; the problem is with the wider world, in particular the sources it's produced. At that point, the best thing to do is to go out into the world and either get the conclusions you want to appear on Wikipedia published by a considered-reliable publisher, or work to motivate other people to do that. In the case of this article, if nothing else the census will catch up sooner or later.
There are a variety of reasons for this policy. One I consider quite significant is that this is basically what encyclopedias exist to do: they're tertiary sources that summarize the secondary RS available on a topic. That's what Britannica, World Book, etc. do too. They also sometimes have errors which they pick up from their secondary sources, but there too, that's not really their fault; that's more on the secondary authors, which have a responsibility to vet the factuality of the primary sources they work from. Doing that is a form of original research, which is part of why we refrain from doing that—it's not really the role of an encyclopedia editor. The producers of secondary sources are supposed to be experts in their field who have the necessary background to make appropriate use of the primary sources they need; it's up to their publishers to ensure that they're sufficiently expert. As producers of a tertiary source, our question is whether or not the publishers are reliable; past that, we have to trust the authors they've decided to publish. Sifting fact from fiction, truth from error, etc. in a fundamental sense is on the secondary authors.
Another reason I consider significant is that without this policy, we would not have a reliable way to settle content disputes between editors. It's generally fairly easy for a large enough group of editors to come to a decent consensus about whether or not a given source is reliable, and it's typically quite easy for those editors to all look at the source together and see what it says. That makes most content disputes pretty straightforward to resolve: identify a pool of RS, and for every question of what to put in the article, look through the pool and see if any source says it or not. Without this, it becomes everyone's word against everyone else's; how would you counter me, without relying on whether or not a given source is reliable, if I were to say that the community's boundaries and population exactly matched the CDP's, and cited a convincing-looking website which said as much? I might have made that website myself; I could even make several to bolster my position. The odds that I could make it appear that they came from a reliable publisher is a lot lower, though. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 20:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Patapsco913 I'm trying to engage in good faith, and seeking to understand your position to resolve conflict. I would ask you to do the same. A vague accusation that maybe I work for the HOA is inappropriate. Repeating that I haven't produced citations, when I've produced multiple ones from the Houston Chronicle, isn't helpful.
If you added back a statement about how the CDP is just a sliver of the community, I didn't notice it, entirely because it used to have that sentence, you deleted half of it (in the change that I initially asked you about), and when you responded with demands for citations while rushing through another 30+ changes to the article, I stopped looking at it to just disengage.
I asked about your underlying concern because I am still seeking a resolution that will address your primary concern, as well as my desire for accuracy. Again I'll ask, which is your primary concern?
  • To have every CDP documented in wikipedia
  • To have the racial/ethnic makeup of every community mentioned in their respective wiki articles
  • To have general demographic makeup documented across wikipedia and in this article in particular, to give a sense of the residents; it could include the other information that used to be provided but has now fallen off from many wiki articles, such as educational attainment, household income, employment, housing, and healthcare
Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedian-in-Waiting I cannot see what information that I deleted: I just moved the info regarding the area from Demographics to Geography. I added the statement regarding the population of the CDP not reflecting the expanded geography you assert to accommodate your concern. That is why I asked for a reference providing the expanded population which can be added to that statement which I think would further clarify the difference. I cannot find any source that is third party and reliable regarding the expanded population or geography. It is not a demand...just a request for confirmation of what you are asserting.
This is what I added "Cinco Ranch was first listed as a census designated place in the 2000 U.S. Census. In the 2010 U.S. Census, part of the CDP was annexed to the city of Houston. The area defined by the census indicates a population of 16,899 in 2020 and does not include the expansions since 2000. The estimated population of the broader comminity is xxxxxxxxxxxx. This seems to clarify your concern or no? We just need reliable 3rd party citations stating as much.Patapsco913 (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cinco_Ranch,_Texas