Talk:Cinco Ranch High School

College not
The stuff about Cinco being "college" is unverifiable and irresponsible. I took many AP classes at Cinco and I find college to be quite a challenge indeed.

Attention to whoever initially wrote this page: PLEASE STOP AND RETAKE ENGLISH! "Wikipedia is used by many students for reference purposes, so there is much criticism of this blockage. The Websense internet site lists Wikipedia under the heading "reference"; however, the program can block any material which it deems unfit. i.e. ("tasteless", "sex", "racism and hate", "games")." - That is a reflection of 6th grade writing skills, not "college" level skills. Your article was filled with tasteless, offensive, immature statements, reflecting the poor education you received from this high school and an overall insensitivity to other social classes. These problems have been mostly corrected; in the future, please refrain from making egotistical comments without objective proof.

Sorry for being bigoted and biased but I was pissed and still am. Instead of stripping my two-cents off the page you could maybe make it less biased and more factual. And calling my writing skills "a reflection of 6th grade writing skills" is mean and unfounded seeing I have written many articles on Wikipedia without removal or reproach. EX. Bully (film)

ACtually, for me, it's not your "writing skills" that bother me (and I'm not the one who posted the "retake english" stuff, but still-- it's the content. Whoever you are, you have to realize that a lot of the things you typed in here were not the stuff of encyclopedias. For instance: a student refuted a calculus theory and was "quieted?" Rumors have no place in an encyclopedia entry. And frankly, neither do issues that only relate to a select few. Saying that "students said Cinco made college seem easy" is taking the words of a few and extending it into a general discription. I could go on. Lastly, you might want to look more closely at your "Bully" page, where I saw a few grammatical mistakes on a glance. Anyway, thanks for the effort, and try not to let people get you angry or upset; I think they usually mean well. --Unsolvedmre 05:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with those paragraphs is that they're unverifiable, biased, and irresponsible.

I think your mixing up people. The only thing I added to the CRHS article was about Wikipedia being banned - and in hindsight it wasn't very wikiesque. Crucify the guy that actually is writing crap (i.e. rumors)! thanks Andman8 01:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Add more...
How about you take a look at Taylor High's page and add stuff to ours that they have. Accolades? Famous alumni?

Please, Someone with more experience than I, add more II
most particularly, i would like to see pictures on this page. There are incredible numbers of pics of the exterior of the school, the interior, and students in action online, accessible via the school's website. Could even just do a google image search for cinco ranch high. Surely some of these are useable within wiki terms of use. The bottom line is, i do not feel qualified to add images to wikipedia due to a lack of experience with compyrights, and will not undertake to do so until i am ready, but I feel like someone like Whisper could do a great service to this article with some pics. Thanks

Free use images
Some people on this page seem to be asking for guidance on copyright and images. Wikipedia is (as seen under the logo graphic) "The Free Encyclopedia". "Free" means that other people should be able to reuse our stuff without having to worry about its copyright status. Grabbing pictures off somebody else's website and then reusing them on ours isn't going to help that. It's not a tragedy if an article doesn't have pictures; they can always be added later by somebody who does have the opportunity to take them. But if anybody editing this article attends or otherwise has access to this school, it would be great if they could take some pictures of their own! An alternative is to ask the school to provide their own and license them so that they can be used. Because we want content to be reusable, that means licensing it freely (i.e. to anybody, including commercial sources), not just giving permission for it to be used on Wikipedia. If you do want to use pictures for which somebody else holds copyright and want to persuade them to license it, the best place to look is WP:COPYREQ. If it's necessary to make use of the much more limited "fair use" provision, which is probably irrelevant so long as some free use pictures can be found instead (unless the fair use pictures really say something special about the school, there's no point of having them in if there are free use ones too) the best place to look is WP:FU. Something to note is that fair use images must be informative, not just decorative, and so consensus seems to be that they shouldn't really be used in galleries. Fair use pictures may well be lost in printed or CD-released editions of Wikipedia or in WikiReaders so are worth avoiding if possible for that reason too. Why bother clogging up a "free" encyclopedia with copyright issues, if there are enough freely licensed images to show the average reader anything that's really important (remembering that this is an encyclopedia entry, not a brochure)? TheGrappler 01:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I went up to cinco the other day and took all the pictures myself. I freely give them to public domain but maybe I used the wrong copyright. The only pic I took off another site was the main one but i'll change that in a sec. Andman8 16:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Good article nom
I'm putting this on hold at the moment; there's a lot of stuff that's good but many of the images currently lack copyright info and are in line for deletion. That needs to be sorted before this can be properly reviewed. TheGrappler 01:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the discussion that was developing on the actual nomination page. Looks to me like there's still one pic with a dodgy copyright notice (the cougar thing), so I've left it as 'on hold' as this should be easy to sort out. 6 July

I fixed the cougar thing. Like I said, took all the pics myself but screwed up on some of the lincenses, It looks good now though Andman8 18:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * On hold, highly POV and bragging about itself and how good and rich it is. Non-encyclopedic. This will be on hold for 7 days from 5 July. Rlevse 19:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * These are some other problems that I've identified:
 * Image:Willifordpervert.jpg lacks a fair use rationale. It's not clear the programme maker actually possesses copyright over the image displayed on screen, incidentally. If you want to use a mugshot, are they publicly available? Most of all, why is this important anyway? Does it actually tell the reader anything useful that they can learn about the school from?
 * "According to administrators, principals, and official publications, it is the best high school in America." This seems to be putting a POV slant on things. It would probably be better to say "Administrators, principals and official publications claim that it is the best..." or "have used the slogan that it is the best" - the reason why this would be better is that the facts actually tell more about the administrators than they do about whether the school is really the best. On the contrary, if Time magazine judged it to be the best, then the emphasis should naturally lie the other way.
 * Blocking Wikipedia is an utterly unencylclopedic feature of a school, as is identifying by name the student who created the yearbook.
 * On the whole the article tries to achieve a balance by saying "these are the list of things that have been claimed about the school, and here are some controversies it has been involved with". The result is utterly insipid - turning something into a dispute and then presenting two "sides" isn't generally a good way to produce an encyclopedic article. It also suffers by its inability to filter between relevant/important information and stuff that is essentially trivial (honestly, it reads like the "mice release" story is coming from student memory - is there a source for it? Even if there was, does it really matter enough that it belongs in an encyclopedia article?) and not at all encyclopedic. If you want to write a good schools article, look at Caulfield Grammar School, Hopkins School and Plano Senior High School. (No mice pranks discussed there, either.) NPOV isn't about creating an artificial argument just so you can show two sides of it.
 * The quality of writing isn't great - it needs a copyedit.
 * The article is internally inconsistent about the "Best High School in America" claim. Is this still being claimed? Or has the claim been dropped, along with the slogan?
 * Some sections - including quite controversial ones - are entirely unreferenced. That's not sustainable. (Also, the fact that 100% of references are to the internet is definitely not a good thing - paper references are always welcome!)
 * To a non-American reader much of the article will make little sense. For instance, most of the world doesn't follow the American grade system - there should either be a wikilink to a page that explains it, or some indication given of student ages, or (preferably) both. How do the Advanced Placement test statistics compare to the national average? On the other hand, it is good (and welcome!) that SAT results are compared to the national average.
 * I think that this stuff will need to get sorted before GA status would be given. It's really good to see the photos sorted, though. But again, be selective. Does somebody really read an encylopedia article about a school so that they can see a picture of speed bumps? At the very least, shouldn't the statue be more prominent in the gallery than the speed bumps are? TheGrappler 19:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Some answers and more questions for Rlevse/TheGrappler


 * I'll take out all the unreferenced stuff, the chicks name in the year book, and the POV stuff.


 * As for printed references, the school 7 years old and not very famous so I doubt there is anything about the school in a book. The internet stuff works plus there are many good articles that have no references - so anyway.


 * "There are many good articles that have no references" - Find them and delist them. Every statement made in every single WP article should be verifiable in the references given (see WP:V). The reason that internet stuff doesn't really work so well on its own is that there is a plethora of stuff out there - allowing an editor to pick and choose as they see fit, and therefore a reader can't be certain that those things that have been chosen for inclusion in the article are a balanced and representative selection. A particular problem is that internet links are generally skewed towards official websites and news websites, which has a seriously distorting effect. Remember, this is meant to be an article not an argument. Have a look at the featured school articles listed above. They aren't written in the dialectic form that this article is. By paper sources, we aren't talking about books about the school. We are talking about things like good high school guides, inspection or finance reports, and to some extent, newspapers and magazines (which should be referenced directly to the paper copy, not solely to an archived internet version).TheGrappler 10:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Woops - I was thinking of WikiProject Unreferenced GA which is different I guess, my mistake. Also, I don't know were to get inspection and finance reports but I will get around to changing the newspaper references to the printed version. This brings me to my next point. Why do I have to do all the f****ng work? i'd much rather spend my time working on clerks. or boxing or not on wiki at all. Is there any way to get some of your buddies to give me some help here, I'm a little frustrated. Andman8 18:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The table for the pictures was the best thing I could come up with because the article looks bad with 8 pictures in a relatively short space. I would take off some of the pics but I feel each one adds to the article in some way even if "just a speed bump". O and the wikilink to AP testing shows the reader the test is hella hard and only smart people pass it.


 * A gallery is fine - a good idea, I think nobody would dispute that. But some measure of rearrangement and selectivity would be a good idea. How odd would it be to have a photo gallery for a famous art museum, and the first pictures to be "here is the art museum car park", "here is a speed bump in the art museum car park"... TheGrappler 10:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I argree - then should we delete damn speed bump pick - but then the gallery would look weird with a odd number of pics. That decision is for someone else. Andman8 18:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't really want to delete the mice thing. Would it be enclyopedic to make a senoir prank section or stick it in under Discipline and student culture?


 * Putting it under "Discipline and student culture" would be sensible. It needs to be fully referenced though. And you need to explain why it is significant - is it the most serious prank that has ever happened? If so, you need a reference for that too. If its significance is inexplicable, then it just looks extremely weird. It's not the sort of thing that normally is found - or should be found - in an encyclopedia: there needs to be a very good reason to include it.TheGrappler 10:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Also i'm pretty pissed about them blocking wiki. I mean what kind of right wing nazi does that anyways. Sorry, off on a tangent - so could it be kept if it's written more NPOVlike?


 * Still doesn't belong in the lead. I'm not convinced that it's a major feature of the school. Besides, have you seen WP:SELF? Wikipedia articles should never mention Wikipedia unless it is absolutely necessary. You might want to write about their general blocking policies - provided it can be fully referenced, and there is some evidence that this is actually a significant feature of the school (I can't see why it is - all schools have some kind of internet restrictions, this one's would have to be pretty exceptional to be worth discussing in any depth). TheGrappler 10:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The internet restrictions at cinco are "pretty exceptional". Fox news and google are about the only things not blocked. Andman8 18:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The writing is a bit amateurish, hey I didn't most of it and besides, being the grammar/syntax police doesn't really interest me. Suggestion - possibly have a WikiSchoolProject collaberation of the week or something.


 * I think the Williford perv pic belongs in the article b/c it shows the reader what he looks like and give more credence that cinco has a pervert problem and wiki isn't making it up Andman8 04:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It does at least show that the problem is so serious that it got onto television, I suppose. But "give more credence that cinco has a pervert problem" isn't good reasoning. The way to establish credence is through full and thorough referencing. Most of all, why does it matter what he looks like? Much like, why does it matter what a speed bump looks like? In what way is this useful or educative for the reader? A photograph of the founding Principal would make sense, but a photo of this guy... well, I'm not too convinced what the reader is going to get out of it. TheGrappler 10:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if the pic goes, again not my call, the peeping tom section stays. I think we can all agree on that. Last thing, I think theres more work being done talking about the article than actually fixing anything, just my two cents.Andman8 18:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

There's certainly enough material here to make a good article. There is no real reason this can't grow into a featured article. But at the moment the inclusion and exclusion of material seems poorly thought through and uncharacteristic of an encyclopedia (at one stage, a mice prank and the name of the yearbook compiler were relevant enough to put in, but the decision-making that went into the founding of the school - something which is always controversial and for which lots of published material would be available - isn't explained at all?) and the article suffers from a really big structural flaw. Please remember that this isn't an article about a row between a School administration and its critics. It's not an article about a struggle between a school and its pupils. It's not an article about a battle between a school and some pervs. At the moment, the article is writen like an argument between two sides. It's meant to be an article about a school. The featured school articles I listed above do not leave the feeling that they're about an argument. That doesn't mean they aren't written from a neutral point of view. TheGrappler 10:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Not yet a GA
Unfortunately, I have had to decline this GA nomination now it's no longer on hold. There's a couple of stylistic things to sort out - newspaper and magazine title should be in italics - but that's not my prime concern. My opinion's gone a long way down since I checked out all the references. I have still got concerns about the dialectic structure of the article (it's meant to be a factual entry about a school, not a summary of claims and counterclaims in a theoretical argument between the school administration and its critics). I also have very serious concerns about some of the material in this article but I suspect that that will mostly get cleared up if what I am about to explain gets heeded. I also think it's worth reiterating that it's a very bad idea to mention anybody by name if they do not deserve an article of their own, unless they are pretty central to this article and there is a really, really good reason to. Other than that, there's now also a fair use image with a rather dodgy fair use claim.

But the big problem has a lot to do with the references. This article is definitely salvagable but you need to strip large parts of it down and reconstruct it, based on the six key principles of WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV. Look at some of the featured articles on schools: Caulfield Grammar School, Hopkins School and Plano Senior High School. Taste the quality. Work out what kind of information those articles are including. Observe how they handle areas of controversy (those articles aren't split into "For" and "Against" sections, which this one seems to be tending towards). Look at the sort of facts that are included, the way they are referenced, then check out the references to see how the reference matches the fact.

In short, this article needs to consist of a series of neutrally reported facts. Every single part of those facts should appear in one of the references, and after every couple of facts one should expect to see a reference. When the reader checks out that reference, the facts for which it has been cited should all be clearly stated in the reference. In effect, the reference should be the source material that the fact, at least in the form stated, came from.

This article currently contains a lot of anecdotes and generalizations. The reason I am so strongly opposed to this getting GA status is that in fact many of the "references" are often just tangentially related weblinks, sometimes clearly not from a reliable source, and which often just add another anecdote to the issue. The references need to state the facts that they are being cited for. Any fact that can not be referenced in this way should be removed from the article. I can honestly say that I've never seen a referenced article so badly referenced. I find this quite troubling - as a Wikipedian, I was very glad when the new Footnotes system was introduced (the previous footnotes system was very hard to use), because I believed that it would make our articles trustworthy and verifiable. This article is abusing them very seriously: the provision of extensive footnotes makes this article appear to be well referenced and supported, but in fact it is a long way from either. Consider:


 * The Gator Gazette and Censorship: During the 2004-2005 school year, a secret newspaper was distributed amongst the students, usually leaving stacks in bathrooms. The paper contained articles of a humorous and criticizing nature, poking fun at different groups, such as the administration and the security guards around the school. Eventually, the authors were caught and punished with Saturday detention. The name comes from Principal Bonnie Brasic, who on her first day as principal, slipped on the announcements and said "Go Gators!" (the schools mascot is the Cougar, while her former school's was known as the Gators). This became a joke around the school, which Mrs. Brasic embraced. It is also noteworthy that censorship was achieved in this matter successfully not by prohibiting student publications (which would likely not be lawful) but by prohibiting their distribution on campus, citing it as a distraction from the school day. This rule has been similarly employed to stop the production and wearing of shirts by students which criticized the administration, as they were being sold and distributed at school.

The "reference" link being claimed for this entire paragraph pretty much confirms that there is a newspaper called the Gator Gazette. And that's it. The rest of the paragraph - which reads like an anecdote, not an encyclopedia entry, anyway - is completely unsupported. It's the same throughout the text, but gets really bad towards the last few sections. There's also some things that are crying out for additional citations: Houston Chronicle apparently says the school runs a "tight ship" on discipline, but is completely uncited.

As an exercise, I strongly suggest taking a copy of this article to a subpage of your user page. Then delete everything that isn't footnoted. After that, check the references provided in the footnotes, one by one. Ask yourself whether it satisfies WP:RS: if not, delete it and the text it is supposedly referencing. If the source is fine, then go back to the text that it footnotes, and delete anything that isn't explicitly stated in the reference. Facts that can only be found by browsing around within a website should be referenced using the particular page that the fact comes from. Don't let in weasel words: scrub out anything that looks like "some people considered" and make it clear who said or did what, and (if necessary) who reported it. If there was anything so important you couldn't bear to delete it, you need to find and cite a reliable source for it. Chances are, if you can't, it wasn't worth mentioning in an encyclopedia in the first place. After that, fix up the formatting issues (e.g. italicize newspaper titles) and privacy issues (scrub out instances of naming people unless it is clearly necessary) and sort out the image licensing ... and by the end of all that, you'll probably be left with a pretty decent article. To improve it, you could move stuff around and restructure it, so that it no longer looks so much like a dispute but more like an article. You could add more material (e.g. from past exam results or inspection reports).

By the end of that I think that you'd have a really decent article on your hands. Following the letter and spirit of WP:V will help you strip out from this article the rubbish that doesn't belong and encourage you to build on some of its stronger foundations.

At the moment, what at first sight looks like a well-referenced article, essentially consists of a large amount of utterly unsupported rumor, innuendo, anecdotes and generalizations. The footnotes make it look like there are reliable sources to back them up, but there generally aren't. This isn't just bad form, it's positively dangerous, especially when dealing with recent issues and controversies.

On the other hand, this article has definitely come a long long way in a relatively short matter of time. It has a relatively good core to build from, it's just buried in quite a bit of unencylopedic baggage at the moment, and needs to be cut free. There seems to be enough material on this school to bring this up to featured article status. Bear in mind that for lengthier articles, GA status is meant for articles that are almost at FA level. If this got brought to WP:FAC it would be torn to shreds mercilessly. But there's no reason it can't get there - it will take strong editorial judgment and some ruthless, dispassionate editing.

One more thing - anything mentioned in the lead, should appear later in the article body (see WP:LEAD). The Wikipedia claim does not. Only verified information should be in this article. The Wikipedia claim is not. Completely trivial things should not really appear in an article. The Wikipedia claim probably is. Wikipedia has a strong editorial consensus to avoid self references. Basically, the Wikipedia blocking thing has just got to go.

Apart from that, I would strongly recommend just sitting down and having a breather, then before editing this article again, read thoroughly through WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV. Even the six taken together are surprisingly short. If you understand these thoroughly, the quality of this article will increase even faster. Good luck with it! TheGrappler 01:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats like your opinion man hehe! anyways in all seriousness I feel I put together a pretty good article, better than 90% of wiki, click random article a few times if you disagree, but I do also realize its definately not a good/featured article possibility and im fine with that. but personally F**K cinco, i'm sick of writing, researching, thinking about the damn school, i'm completely burnt on the article. maybe in a few months i'll come back to it but for now if im going to volunteer my time in the name of expanding human knowledge it will be about things i really have an interest in i.e. boxing, film, etc. Andman8 21:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not awful. Probably in the top 5% or so - I do a lot of random page patrol so I'm pretty qualified on the subject. Good and featured articles together make up less than one quarter of one percent though. But the referencing honestly was the worst I have ever seen, and I've seen and checked a lot of articles. For instance, where there is a humungous paragraph of text:


 * The Gator Gazette and Censorship: During the 2004-2005 school year, a secret newspaper was distributed amongst the students(1), usually leaving stacks in bathrooms.(2) The paper contained articles of a humorous and criticizing nature,(3) poking fun at different groups, such as the administration and the security guards around the school.(4) Eventually, the authors were caught and punished with Saturday detention.(5) The name comes from Principal Bonnie Brasic, who on her first day as principal, slipped on the announcements and said "Go Gators!"(6) (the schools mascot is the Cougar, while her former school's was known as the Gators).(7) This became a joke around the school, which Mrs. Brasic embraced.(8) It is also noteworthy(9) that censorship(POV) was achieved in this matter successfully not by prohibiting student publications(10) (which would likely not be lawful(11)) but by prohibiting their distribution on campus,(12) citing it as a distraction from the school day(13). This rule has been similarly employed to stop the production and wearing of shirts by students which criticized the administration(14), as they were being sold and distributed at school(14)


 * I count 14 individual factual claims and one POV statement, and the "reference" is nothing more than an external link to the student newspaper in question. It doesn't even provide a reference for fact number 1 since the existence of a webpage doesn't prove distribution!


 * I understand why you've spun off the criticisms article but both that article and this one need to be balanced. In addition, it's good summary style to include a summary of anything that's been spun off. In addition, there's relevant guidance at Content forking that needs to be followed; in these circumstances I'm not convinced that it's quite justified. (Mainly because it looks like spinning off the rubbish part of an article so that other parts can get a quality mark...)


 * I do think this article has made good steps. One thing that I find helps is to write your article (from scratch if possible) with all the sources infront of you. That way it's easy to restrain yourself to never saying more than your source does, and everything will hit WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:NOR with ease. Axe-swinging on the unverified, the unverifiable, and the utterly irrelevant, is basically what sets Wikipedia apart from being a giant collective blog and more towards an online encyclopedia. And, basically, a memory of a school prank about mice is just a memory of a school prank about mice, which you'll always be able to tell friends, children, and grandchildren. You could record it on a blog or diary or book of memories. But the place to record that there once was a school prank about mice, and Teacher Did Not Like It Very Much, is probably not an encyclopedia entry... TheGrappler 00:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, if you're burnt, don't worry. This'll be here in 6 months or 2 years time. I get the impression that almost all the best schools articles are written by alumni, in fact, presumably because their attachment is less involved, they have to rely more on secondary sources than on memory, and don't get caught up in everyday disputes and controversies. Basically they get some more perspective. Anyway, good luck whichever project you choose to contribute to. Hunt your sources (reliable, of course) like a rabid wolf and they'll all be glad of you. Sources win prizes, and also give you more editorial leeway - it's easier to fight your corner if the definitive work on the subject backs you up. It's also rare for a really well-referenced article of any significant length not to pass on WP:FAC, so it'd be a good way of getting some stars on your user page. Best of luck, TheGrappler 01:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
I've removed a few things from the article that were either inappropriate content about a living person, or used sources that didn't support the controversial content. Finally, there was something about the Katy Independent School District policy for random drug testing starting in the 2004-2005 school year. This seems like it should be in the KISD article. The Houston Chronicle page is still available. Gimmetrow 06:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup of September 11-12, 2013
I have made numerous edits to this article in the past couple days and a newly registered account keeps reverting them without discussion. In most cases the edits were to bring the article in line with the school article guidelines, but there was some removal of WP:PEACOCK and WP:PUFFERY. All edits were explained completely in the edit summaries. I invite any interested editor here to discuss what makes for a quality school article, and I will be happy to re-explain my actions to any interested party. Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Cinco Ranch High School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080913085123/http://dallasisdblog.dallasnews.com:80/blueribbonsschools08.pdf to http://dallasisdblog.dallasnews.com/blueribbonsschools08.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061116023355/http://katyisd.org:80/AZ/index.asp to http://www.katyisd.org/AZ/index.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Cinco Ranch High School. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080913085123/http://dallasisdblog.dallasnews.com/blueribbonsschools08.pdf to http://dallasisdblog.dallasnews.com/blueribbonsschools08.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303184655/http://www.uil100.org/archives/athletics/track-field-team.php?boys_girls=Boys to http://uil100.org/archives/athletics/track-field-team.php?boys_girls=Boys

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

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

Attendance zone in 1999
This states the attendance zone when the school first opened

http://web.archive.org/web/19990424010319/http://www.katy.isd.tenet.edu/kisd/releases/crhszones.htm

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)