Talk:The Woodlands, Texas

Untitled
Will Makar lives there Hottie from American Idol!
 * Hey, now, I live here too :P Hammerbrodude 05:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This page needs some trimming/editing. Looking for feedback on the following list. If I don't get feedback, I'll take it apon myself to edit based on what I think is higher priority in this order... Or, if you agree its a major foul to the article, go ahead and do it. 1.John Cooper School has its own article, yet it cotains an article's worth of info in this one. 2.Also is "The newest Village of Creekside Park is being developed within Harris County, Texas." noteworthy enough to go in the 3rd sentence of the article? 3.The extra info with The Woodlands High (and TWCP), is in the article about the school, is it really needed here? Perhaps it would fit better in Trivia... 4.And the school are bracketed as Montgomery County. Why? No other county currently educates these residents. If anything a more accurate and useful bracketing would be Conroe ISD/Tomball ISD/ Klien ISD/Spring ISD, although I personally don't know of any ISD besides Conroe currently serving the Woodlands, though tomball will soon have a part. If nobody has an objection to deleteing the Montgomery county portions, and substituting CISD/ TISD. And Town Center seems long compared to info on villiages, but seems to cover the info well... Also needs to be updated under future plans about the deal worked out between Houston and thier intentions of no Woodlands annexation in the future.... Feedloadr 09:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Excuse any screwups, its past my bed time....


 * I just kinda jumped in and I addressed a lot of these issues and given a better structure, but I think I might have stripped it a little bare, especially in the neighborhood section - but before it was a really difficult wall of text. Feel free to add some stuff back. Korranus 23:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The demographics are all wrong.
The demographics being displayed are not official populations. First of all, there was no 2005 census. The data from the 2005 American Community Survey of the U.S. Census Bureau shows The Woodlands to have 65,744 people. More detailed statistics can be found at the Census Bureau's website.

68.33.176.99 22:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC) MB


 * Yeah, they were funky. I made everything conform to the 2000 Census. --Korranus 03:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

?
The woodlands is not a township, however it is written all over this article that it is like one. How do I know it isn't a township? Texas doesn't even have townships. Now, I understand that the article also says it's actually a local government and states that it is compared to a township, but that would be like saying that the golden gate bridge is almost like the mackinac. I'm just wondering if this should be corrected. &lt;b&gt;Tylerrrr (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * According to this... Postoak (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article calls the Woodlands a local government in the summary and table, yet it is called a CDP several times elsewhere. I seem to remember it being called a Census Designated Place in a previous version of the article. Someone, preferably someone familiar with US Census classifications or actually from the Woodlands should clear this up. I looked at this article while working with another CDP, Bacliff, Texas. UrsaLinguaBWD (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It -> http://www.thewoodlandstownship-tx.gov/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.115.161 (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The Woodlands is a Special District created by House Bill 4109

The link for bill.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodo...l/HB04109S.htm

Nobody ever reads a contract

Sec. 14. DISSOLUTION. (a) The board may elect by majority vote to dissolve the district at any time

In side Parenthesis Removed from bill:

[, and the board shall dissolve the district on written petition of the owners of 75 percent, in terms of acreage, of the real property in the district];

Bruce Tough, Township Board member said it: It will Take 20 years to pay off the bonds:

however, the district may not be dissolved by the board if the district has any outstanding indebtedness or contractual obligations, including obligations under a regional participation agreement authorized by this Act or other law, until such indebtedness or contractual obligations have been repaid or discharged, unless the indebtedness or contractual obligations have been assumed by another governmental entity with the power and authority to repay or discharge them.

(b) After the board elects to dissolve the district, the board shall transfer ownership of all property and assets of the district to Montgomery County, except as provided by Subsection (c) of this section. (c) If on the date of the vote to dissolve the district more than 50 percent of the territory within the district is within the boundaries [corporate limits] of another governmental entity that has assumed the indebtedness and contractual obligations of the district under Subsection (a) of this section [a municipality], the board shall transfer ownership of the district's property and assets to that governmental entity [municipality]. (d) The district may not be dissolved by a municipality annexing all or part of [in which] the district [is located]. __________________

Answer from an Attorney

The following is based on a quick read and I may be all wrong but, it seems that under (c), since we are in Houston's ETJ, if they assume the bond debt, which is then payable to them, and the district disolves, all assets go to Houston, without the bother of annexation. Of course, they would also have to assume the contractual obligations, i.e. police protection, fire protection and maintenance agreements and whatever else the district has gotten us into, which sounds like the same thing they would take on in an annexation except more. However, contracts can be bought out, renegotiated, etc. So, for the price of the interest on the bonds and the cost to get rid of the various contracts (buyout etc.), Houston gets all our assets.

] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdonn76405 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

PF Chang's
Does anyone else find it funny that the giant horses outside of PF Chang's are pictured in this article? Most PF Chang's I have been to (all over the country) have these same giant statues out in front. I don't think the picture is notable because although it might be at the PF Chang's in the Woodlands, most other PF Chang's locations thruout the country also have these same horse statues. Maybe it should be deleted or moved to the PF Chang's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.133.14 (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Maybe if someone could take a wider angle picture of that area, showing the mall or waterway as a whole, that be a more appropriate picture.  Ufwuct (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also the pic labeled "Town Center" is a picture of the Cheesecake Factory, taken not five feet away from where the other photo was taken. Very odd, indeed.W0lfie (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect map
This seems like an incorrect map. This map is missing parts of Alden Bridge, all of Sterling Ridge, and Creekside Park, which are all villages of The Woodlands. I would assume that they would be included in the definition of the "The Woodlands CDP". Ufwuct (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, not all developments of the Woodlands are in the CDP. The CDP is set by the United States government. The Woodlands association is separate. See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/MapItDrawServlet?geo_id=16000US4872656&_bucket_id=50&tree_id=420&context=saff&_lang=en&_sse=on WhisperToMe (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Add External Link: Lake and Ponds of the Woodlands
A valuable external resource link was removed from wikipedia: Lakes and Ponds in the Woodlands(www.fishinginthewoodlands.com) The web site contains maps and links to over 41 ponds and lakes in The Woodlands as well as comments by local residents and fisherman. The site has been admired and commented on by the Local Rangers as a great resource to the community. The site does not contain any advertising and is not pushing a product. It is simply a resource in a similar Wiki format that has taken on a life of its own thanks to contributors. Until the link was recently removed, many wikipedia readers(on average 1-5 per day) would follow the link and spend significant time on the site. See for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.147.3 (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a great site, well-written, informative with zero advertising. The site contains neutral and accurate material that is relevant to the encyclopedic understanding of the lakes and ponds in the Woodlands as well as useful fishing reviews. I see no reason why it was removed. Postoak (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it appropriate per WP:ELNO #1, #11 and #13; and WP:NOTLINK. --Ronz (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok in support of adding the proposed external link back to "The Woodlands" article I offer the following to address your concerns.
 * As I understand it the "NOTLINK" issue is defined as:Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia.


 * I submit that the fishinginthewoodlands.com link is useful and extremely content relevant as it contains information on 42 locations in The Woodlands which happen to be ponds and lakes. The site provides pictures, lists amenities at the location, suggests fish populations, provides a map, and contains updates from fisherman who have recently visited a given pond or lake. As noted in the article, The Woodlands is a master planned community established with nature as key focal point.  The lakes and ponds are a significant amenity paid for and used by all woodlands residents.


 * Regarding ELNO #1: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.


 * This site absolutely provides a unique resource as it is 100% focused on the location and use of the ponds and lakes within The Woodlands. Having 42 various articles discussing ponds and lakes within The Woodlands would not lend itself to a wikipedia article as you would have 42 interrelated articles or a list of internal links which would be difficult to follow. The Woodlands Township site (http://www.thewoodlandstownship-tx.gov/index.aspx?nid=25) used to contain more information(such as build date) regarding the ponds and lakes within the woodlands, however, with a recent update much of this information is no longer provided by the township(but can still be found on fishinginthewoodlands.com).  Furthermore, lakes and ponds are not adequately described by the existing Wikipedia link to the Township site and are in fact, buried 3-4 links into a Park Amenity Matrix PDF file(non search-able). Although originally used as the basis of fishinginthewoodlands.com in terms of pond names and available amenities(bbq pit, structures, playground etc), fishinginthewoodlands contains significantly more updated information related to fish populations, water conditions, pictures and accurate maps.


 * Regarding ELNO #11: Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies.) I suppose you could make the argument that this could be considered a "Fansite" by the fisherman who use the ponds and lakes, however, even if aa "Authority" existed it would be difficult to visit each pond on a regular basis(trust me on this) much less fish each one and report on current conditions. The closest authority we have on the ponds and lakes within The Woodlands, are the Park Rangers.  They visit the site and have provided valuable information related to the history, rules, fish populations, and current conditions.  FishinginTheWoodlands has received significant praise from the Park Rangers, and residents alike and over the sites 9 month life span, it has built up a regular following which results in 40-50 visits per day and perhaps 3-5 posts per week.  Comments made by fisherman are moderated and specific to the lake or pond listed on a given page.


 * Regarding ELNO #13: Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked.
 * As previously stated this site is focused on a key aspect(lakes and ponds) within The Woodlands which makes The Woodlands, The Woodlands. I could understand that to a person who does not live here this argument could be difficult to grasp, but it is what it is. The first thing you see coming into The Woodlands are the Trees, followed by various bodies of water. The FishingInTheWoodlands site does not contain a variety of links to various subjects. All links are related to the following:
 * Ponds and Lakes within the Woodlands
 * Related fishing links to Texas(3)
 * Related links to local resources (Parks and Recreation, Kayak Rentals)
 * FishingInTheWoodlands.com is a site devoted specifically to the ponds and lakes of the woodlands and how they are used(primarily fishing). It is a specific subject that I believe should be linked from a specific article, The Woodlands, Texas. Deep linking(if I understand this correctly) through multiple Wiki Articles does not lend itself to Wikipedia because it would suffer from a significant number of internal links.


 * Rchaag (talk) 04:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me about this. WP:ELN would be a good place to try to get others' opinions on this.
 * NOTLINK and ELNO#1 are there to remind editors this is an encyclopedia, and we want people contributing to article content rather than external links.
 * I think we're in agreement that ELNO#11 applies.
 * The Woodlands is a community and a location. There's much more to it than just fishing in its lakes and ponds, hence ELNO#13. --Ronz (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Info about Cascade Canyon of The Woodlands
Barker, Jackie. "Showcase of Homes features Woodlands' Cascade Canyon." Houston Chronicle. Wednesday October 4, 2000. ThisWeek 16. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

About sourcing
WhisperToMe (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Lee, Renée C. "Taxes dampen enthusiasm for Woodlands incorporation." Houston Chronicle. Friday April 6, 2012.

Disproportionate Religion Section
The religion section starts off by saying that the area is mostly Christian, and then spends the other 96% of its words talking about Hinduism. If we take the number of Hindu families listed, multiply it by the average family size, and divide that into the total population listed, Hindus make up 1% of the population in the area. I just don't see that devoting almost the entire religion section to a religion with almost no representation in the area makes much sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.216.11.5 (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure your math is perfect, but this does seem out of line with the demographics listed in the article. It looks like someone with a strong interest in Hinduism added all the information they thought was relevant.  The reference to Hinduism should be greatly reduced or removed.  This would, however, make the entire Religion section one to two sentences.  It should probably be removed completely, unless someone can provide more in-depth information.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.183.198 (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The proportion should be based on how reliable secondary sources talk about the subject in non-routine matters, not necessarily the actual percentages of religions in The Woodlands. I had an "expand section" tag because the best way to solve it is to add more content sourced to the Houston Chronicle. Since the temple now has its own Wikipedia article the section doesn't need to talk about it too much. However it should still be mentioned because the Houston Chronicle took the time to write a newspaper article describing it - i.e. non-routine coverage in reliable sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Re: the removal years ago I understand Wikipedia has to be proportionate in some way: WEIGHT says that aspects have to be covered based on how they appear in reliable sources (not necessarily in line with The Woodlands's actual demographics). At the same time I am highly dissatisfied with the "just remove" it approach, because Wikipedia is to grow. Removing like that discourages growth. The best way to handle it is to add information from other religions sourced from Houston Chronicle articles, as I am doing now. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Picture
The photograph representing The Woodlands is over nine years out of date. Could someone find or take an up-to-date photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.169.81.137 (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)