Talk:Texas A&M University/Archive02

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive02

Contents

Proper citation

I begun to properly cite all of our references in this article as I rewrite every section. Hopefully this style can be used by everyone if they consider is userful. -- Hut101 03:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Good call on ensuring proper citations for this article, but rewriting every section concerns me. First, I don't think it's needed. Some minor organizational updates are always appropriate as information changes, but complete rewrites seem unnecessary at this time. Second, in my opinion, your edits have changed the tone of the Vision 2020 section to near the point of academic boosterism. It's essential that this article be as objective and matter-of-fact as possible and that it not become a marketing piece. I realize that probably was not your intention, I'm just letting you know that's how I read it (and it may just be me). My advice though is to simply state the facts in plain English with citations and move on. This page is a useful guide for future edits: [1]. I'll leave your edits and let you, other contributors, and/or a moderator decide if they should be changed or reverted; my vote is that they should be. One other point... each sub-section on this article is already fleshed-out pretty well (and the article is getting rather long). Adding more information would be detrimental, in my opinion. If you have additional information to add on Vision 2020, for example, create a separate Wikipedia article for it. --Ntmg05 04:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your assertion that what I write can be "bossterism", it's slightly difficult to be a student and not consider my school better. That I will work on and attempt to correct within my writing. As for expansion of each section; Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia containing all human knowledge, which I’m certain, has been elaborated on considerably. Simply to exclude information because someone does not wish to scroll down is irrelevant but that’s just my opinion. I plan on moving Vision 2020 to the historical section once it's no longer an evolving situation. -- Hut101 04:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but you don't need to put the sum of human knowledge relating to A&M on a single page. In this article, give a one or two paragraph summary discussing why something is relevant/important to A&M. That should be sufficient for most sub-topics. However, if you want to discuss a sub-topic in further detail, create a separate Wikipedia article for it and do so there. --Ntmg05 04:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
There are a few more references that need proper citation, but so far everything seems to be working correctly. Also, Ntmg05, great work on rewording those sections. -- Hut101 04:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

History

Is there anyone who would be willing to help edit the History article. Best method would be for someone to edit the beginning while someone work from the end, sections about Robert Gates, Vision 2020, ... I would be willing to work on such a joint project if anyone is interested. --

I did lots of work on the history section, but most of it is aimed at the Pre-1970 history. The article still needs work for the post 1970 era. Karanacs 20:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Residential Life

Below is a suggestion for the Residential Life section:

"Housing on campus is split between two distinct sections, a north and south side. Lining the north dormitories span Crocker Hall to Clements Hall. Dormitories to the south of campus primarily center around the Commons, a gathering center of student activities and dining services. Also next to the Commons, is the Quad, dormitories containing the Corps of Cadets."

I'm hopeing for suggestions and improvements. -- Hut101 06:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I went ahead and added it and then expanded on it. Hopefully someone who happens to actually live on campus can continue to contribute to that section. -- Hut101 03:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


When I load the page the first sentence reads "Texas A&M University, often called A&M or TAMU or "home of the east texas white trash" for short, is the flagship[3] institution of the Texas A&M University System."

I have never heard A&M described as the home of the east texas white trash and even if it did I don't think that this "fact" belongs in the first sentence of the article.  It doesn't even make sense, but that's beside the point.  If that is a real nickname for the school then it should appear in some section at the bottom of the article under "Aggie Jokes".

Please fix this ridiculous oversight or hoax.

An anonymous user vandalized the page. The phrase was promptly removed. --Blueag9 02:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Student Life

Proposal for expanding Student Life section. Sections to be included could be Organizations, Residential Life (On-campus living), School Sponsored Activities, and Student Government? -- Hut101 21:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've based the structure roughly on the University of Michigan and its setup. -- Hut101 01:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I've already made the changes and have attempted to add as much as possible but more is needed. -- Hut101 03:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Merging History

Should we possibly merge the separate history page back into this article about A&M. The history page is slightly more than twice the size of the historical information that is actually in this article. However, with maintaining a separate history page, the information will begin to diverge from one another. --Hut101 08:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I vote to keep them separate because in the main article the history needs to be an overview and relatively short and static. Otherwise it will cause the main article to be too long. It's not bad if they diverge a bit in content (e.g. more details in history article), as long as they don't conflict in facts. --Claygate 15:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ranking Issues

The comment about the Washington Monthly rankings should be removed. It is not a scholarly article, gives no information regarding its methodology, and, frankly, appears to be biased in favor of A&M.

US News isn't a scholarly journal, the methodology is plainly stated, and of course it's biased in favor of A&M. It wouldn't have gotten a 5th place ranking if it wasn't. --Ntmg05 04:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the comment about petroleum engineering rankings requires some clarification. There are only a handful of schools in the U.S. that offer this degree separate from Chemical Engineering. Most programs include it as a subset or specialization and are therefore not ranked in that category by US News. Also, Texas A&M is ranked third nationally, behind both the University of Texas and Stanford (tied #1).

The details regarding the organization of petroleum engineering programs is irrelevant to this article. However, the updated rankings do clearly show that A&M is ranked 3rd now, so the article should be updated. --Ntmg05 04:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
   The school is NO LONGER ranked as the number 1 agricultural engineering school in the nation. We need to fix this. Just look at the US News website.

Public Ivy?

An anonymous user added a line about A&M being a "Public Ivy" and "best value in Texas," but gave no reference. I have removed this line until a reference can be provided (or I can find one myself). I think the "best value" claim is correct as I seem to recall seeing that in US News & World Report rankings, but I've never heard A&M referred to as a "Public Ivy." We'll see. --Ntmg05 20:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard A&M being referred to as a "Public Ivy" either. The user "Strstr01" might provide a reference, since he/she is the one who posted the statement on this article and the Public Ivy article. --Blueag9 05:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The school is NO LONGER ranked as the number 1 agricultural engineering school in the nation. We need to fix this. Just look at the US News website.

Rankings

Somone went wild adding Mays rankings to the A&M page. I'd suggest those be removed. This page is long enough without having rankings for specific programs and degrees added to it. The rankings are listed on the Mays college page, which is where they belong. Anyone have a problem with them being removed? --Texink 22:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I had the same thought this morning. It's just too much. I think noting the 1st place rankings and then simply making a link, "For more detailed rankings, see Mays Business School" is all that is needed. --Ntmg05 22:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The school is NO LONGER ranked as the number 1 agricultural engineering school in the nation. We need to fix this. Just look at the US News website.

Public Ivy

A Public Ivy is a term to refer to the nation's top public schools. The last published data referring to public ivy was in the year 2001. Texas A&M has improved dramatically since that time. There is no debate the Texas A&M is one of the top public schools in the nation, which has surpassed numerous colleges in the original “Public Ivy” listings. Some of schools listed on the top colleges were: University of Vermont (us new ranked 93), Indiana University – Bloomington (us news ranked 72), A&M is ranked number 60 (the same as Ohio State). The original source is not an accredited source, for his criteria he simply states that public ivy is a public college which offers a superior education at a fraction of the Ivy League cost (US News tends to be the most respectable college ranking guide). Therefore based on the criteria used to rate the original public ivies, A&M exceeds all of those qualifications at this time. It is only fair to include A&M in the same listing as the other public ivies based on today’s data. Rankings change every year, it is our job to keep the website updated. A&M is considered public ivy in Texas by many from its high academic rankings in the 2nd to the most populous state in the nation. A&M is always ranked as one of the top three universities in Texas. Sometimes it is ranked number one, sometimes it is ranked two (after Rice), and at other times it is ranked (three).


Other's included A&M as a public ivy in this discussion based website: http://www.collegeconfidential.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?4/51063

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/bestvalues/bvnatudoc_brief.php

A&M is ranked the 3rd to the best value for a public university in the U.S. after only the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill and University of Virginia! The great value for the education is what coined the term public ivy. Again, I supported the term for A&M to be called a public ivy. This is all that is required by wikipedia. This term is based on cost and education or should I say value.


BTW, the top value in texas is at this site:

http://www.tamu.edu/tamunews/News/stories/06/012006news-11.html

Texas A&M is the top-ranked university in Texas and the Southwest in Kiplinger's 2006 list of the nation's 100 "best values in public colleges."

Kiplinger's list is headed by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The only other schools in Texas or the Southwest included on the 2006 list are the University of Texas at Austin at 27th and UT-Dallas, 66th.


By the way, how to I message someone? --- strstr01

"Public Ivy" is a term coined by an author and refers to a specific group of universities that he designated. While A&M may indeed exceed the rankings of those universities, that author nor any other known source has identified A&M as a public ivy. Until that happens, it would be incorrect to refer to A&M as a public ivy. --Ntmg05 03:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC) (I keep forgetting to put my sig today. doh)

I wrote many consider a&m to be considered a public ivy. Which it is... I never wrote an unknown author wrote a book half a decade ago on what he considered public ivys, therefore nothing I said was wrong. If you like I'll publish an article if that makes you feel better.

Who is "many?" Where do they say this? Yes, I would like to see an article. That's what I've been asking for all along. If you can find one reliable source that includes the phrase "A&M is considered a public ivy," then it will be considered. Until then, you're doing original research and determining on your own that A&M is a public ivy. That is generally against Wikipedia policy. --Ntmg05 17:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I dont believe A&M should EVER use the term "Public Ivy". Texas A&M was founded as a land grant school, seperate from the main state university. As such, it was founded under the principle of practical education for the masses rather than a liberal arts education for the children of the state's elite. Public Ivys are known for their quality education and Texas A&M is certainly ranked higher in terms of academia and value than many of them, however the key missing criteria is what the original author termed "look and feel" of an Ivy League school. Texas A&M and the students who go there are, in my opinion, the antithesis of an Ivy. Our schools emphasis on practical subjects like agriculture, engineering and science along with our core values of patriotism, religion and family, all stemming from a history of being military school, mean that we will NEVER have the "feel" of an Ivy and frankly I hope we never do.

A&M

I noticed there was a citation missing for the statement that A&M no longer stands for "Agricultural and Mechanical." So I searched the 'net in hopes of finding a valid source to verify it, and got these websites:

Which site is more appropriate to use as a source? --Blueag9 16:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

They're both official university publications, so either would be fine. The second is probably more "official looking," tho. At one time, there was also an explanation in the "About A&M" section on the main web site, but I don't know if it's still there and frankly I'm too lazy to even open another browser and go look. heh. --Ntmg05 17:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Cloning cats

Hey, I added a little information about A&m' cloning program, not sure where I should place it. I thought it was interesting and added the the University's prestige since it was the first animal to clone a pet.

There's a note about cloning in the "Notable Buildings" section, but I agree, this deserves more prominence than that. A&M is pretty well known for its cloning research now... perhaps a subsection on it in the "Research" section? Thoughts on that? --Ntmg05 00:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Definitely an informative and interesting thing to add. I'd agree it should probably be put in the research section rather than the intro. -Texink 01:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I added some additional information pretaining the cloning research A&M does to the Research section. However, it still needs to be expanded with additional information about actual "research" as a result of cloning, and what current cloning is taking place. Hut101 07:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

References

I fixed the whole article using the <ref> and </ref> format. I am unsure on how to properly cite each source using this format. If anyone knows of a page where I can get that information, please post it here. --Blueag9 19:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Enrollment

Okay, the article cites two different enrollment numbers... one in the infobox and the other in "Academics." What's up with that? --Blueag9 04:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone fixed that, however, I've updated the enrollment numbers based on the head count on the 12th day of classes.Hut101 08:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Aggie questions

  • Dear Wikipedians, I am a freshman at Texas A & M (AAAAAAA!!!!) and was perusing your article on A & M to see what you had. I found it to be quite thorough, but was curious about a few things: 1) Is there a reason that the fact that A&M enters more commissioned officers into the American military except for the service academies is not included. I don't have the exact source readily at hand, but could produce it if need be. Also, on the Traditions of Texas A&M University page, there are a few more things I was curious about: Why is the Sul Ross statue not mentioned? Why is "corps" not capitalized in the Reveille section and why is Junior E-walk not mentioned? I attended Fish Camp this past year and learned about Junior E-walk and can provide excerpts from the handbook we were given. "Humping it" in terms of the yells is also not mentioned, but I wasn't sure if that was as big of a deal. I could also contact the Traditions Council at A & M if necessary to verify my sources. Also, I heard a much different story about the wildcats from my counselors- much different from what is on the article. Last question: I've seen numerous pictures of the Red, White, and Blue Out at Kyle Field. Would it be possible to get an image? I'm a 2k+ edit member of another wiki, so I didn't want to look like an anon screwing with an established page. As we say in A & M, thanks and gig 'em. 128.194.66.132 02:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi anon - welcome to Wikipedia. We would love to see these articles expanded more, especially if you can provide sources for the additions. I'm not familiar with every single TAMU tradition, but if you provide sources I'd be glad to help you incorporate them into the articles if you need any help. Johntex\talk 02:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Oops, didn't realize you guys tend not to favor bulleted talk text here. I spent a little time looking for sources on the traditions and found a basic explanation on most of them:
Boot Line: http://aggietraditions.tamu.edu/bootline.shtml
Replant: http://replant.tamu.edu/
Replant history: http://replant.tamu.edu/whoweare/history.html
Big Event: http://aggietraditions.tamu.edu/bigevent.shtml
Corps stuff: http://aggietraditions.tamu.edu/corps.shtml Also has the fact about A&M entering more officers into the armed forces except the military academies.
Junior E-walk: http://aggietraditions.tamu.edu/jrewalk.shtml
Aggie band: http://aggietraditions.tamu.edu/band.shtml (Also known as the “pulse (or heartbeat) of the spirit of Aggieland”)
Red, White, and Blue Out: http://www.tamu.edu/univrel/aggiedaily/news/stories/02/100202-1.html
Memorial Student Center: http://aggietraditions.tamu.edu/msc.shtml
Ring dance: http://aggietraditions.tamu.edu/ringdance.shtml
http://traditions.tamu.edu/main.asp Another great site that corroborates much of what the other sources say.
RWB Out pic: http://www.replayphotos.com/Red++White++++Blue+Out-10-1-692.html
The part about the Sul Ross statue can actually be found on Wikipedia's article about Mr. Ross, so I didn't look that up. I included a corroborating site because I didn't know the policy on that here. There was a RWB Out pic on the last site, but I was unsure of how image policy was here, so I just left the link. I have e-mailed the Texas A&M University Traditions Council about the history of three other parts of A&M culture: 12th Man towels, Sergeant Rock, and the Horse Laugh. I also asked them about the origins of wildcatting. I'll reply whenever I can. If that doesn't work, I do have a class with one of the yell leaders. I probably will not become a major Wikipedian, as I already have another wiki to edit and classes and such, but I hope this helps and follows your manual of style. I'm undecided on acquiring an actual username. Thanks and gig 'em. 128.194.66.132 05:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Excellent - thanks for the great sources. I started out by adding the fact about more commissioned officers than any other school, along with citing the reference you provided. Some of the traditions may fit better over at the Traditions or History sub-articles. We try to keep articles from getting too big. I've gotta run for now. Thanks again for the sources and, oh yeah, Hook 'em! Johntex\talk 05:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, most of the traditions I listed would fit much better on the traditions subpage, but there wasn't any discussion there. I already knew you were a "sip." Thanks and gig 'em. 128.194.66.132 13:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Archive the talk???

This is getting to be one of the largest Talk pages I've seen that wasn't archived. I don't know enough of the technical aspects to do it, but it seems high time that someone archived the discussion here ... it goes back to 2004 (!) and is now at 65KB long. Lawikitejana 07:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Johntex\talk 05:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Images and commons

Hello, I added a photo from a football game to this article. I also created a page on the Commons to collect free images related to Texas A&M University. Please contribute your photos (must be freely licensed) to this page. As the collection grows, it will be a great resource for all articles pertaining to the school and its traditions and history. Thanks! Johntex\talk 03:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Archive

Can someone please archive this talk page as all topics have been addressed and it's now necessary to move on to new discussions. -- Hut101 07:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

If any of you have any specific sites on campus where I should take pictures, let me know. I am planning to take pictures this weekend of Research Park, Northgate, and the Rec. Let me know if you can think of any others, or want me to take better pictures of the ones already on the page. Blueag9\talk 23:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're planning to get some landscape shots, it'd probably be a good idea to wait til spring when there's more sunlight and color. PS, thanks for the barnstar. :) -Texink 23:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree it might be better to wait until spring for landscape shots however, there is a need for pictures of buildings on campus. A picture of the inside of Wehner Business School would be nice. New pictures of the MSC, and Arches. Also, if you could get pictures for subsections within the articles. Ex: Picture of Northside dorms and Southside dorms(The Commons) for the Student Life Section. Pictures of each notable building listed on the main article. Also a picture of The Association Of Former Students building would be nice for that article. -- Hut101 23:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Campus Master Plan

Information about the Campus Master Plan should be added. Here is the website. The executive summary report was written nicely, and also has nice pictures of the campus.[2] I really like the aerial view of the campus picture on page 16 of that report, would it be fine to add it to the article? A reason to use it would be that no free alternative can be found (prove me if I'm wrong).Blueag9\talk 23:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

As a product of a state government agency, the document should be in the public domain. And since there's no attribution in the document noting that specific picture is copyrighted material while the rest is public, I think it's safe to assume that photo is also public domain. --Ntmg05 06:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Ntmg05 assesment of the copyright situation. Also, I beleive the information about the university, what buildings are scheduled for demolition, and how the university plans on coping with expansion should be added to the history article under Future Goals. Also maybe some parts that are actually under way now can be added to sections such as Vision 2020, Athletics article, and the Student Section.
I think it might be appropriate to create a new Wikipedia article for the Notable Buildings section and photo gallery. That section is getting really long, and now there's a suggestion to expand on the topic even more by adding future goals. Just a thought. --Ntmg05 01:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the page's size is about 49 KB now, and it should be less than that (according to Wikipedia's article size policy). --Blueag9\talk 02:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
To save space these sections should be reduced by as many links as possible: Notable people, See also, External links

I agree "Notable buildings" section can be moved to a seperate article while a summary remains here to explain the general history of buildings on campus. Everything about Robert M. Gates and finding a new president can be moved to the history section. Also, "Vision 2020" can be moved to history, though I believe it needs to stay on the main article or at least another year since it's very recent, and effects the university on a grand scale. Should the Campus Master Plan be mentioned in the main article or the history article? -- Hut101 04:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

I find it sad that people from Texas Tech have nothing better to do than vandalize the A&M wikipedia pages. If this continues, I propose restricting edits on this page to registered users with a talk page only. Thoughts? BQZip01 16:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

They are easy to discipline, just put one of those vandalism templates on their talk pages, and they'll stop. At least in my experience they did. --Blueag9\talk 03:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Nice. I'll keep that in mind BQZip01 07:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Please try to vary the pictures a little. They don't all need to be on the right side of the screen.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.174.88 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 2007 March 29

Portal

Looking at ut's page, they have a university of texas portal. maybe we should have one for texas a&m.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.174.88 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 2007 March 29

We're not trying to be like them...--Blueag9 (Talk | contribs) 15:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I love that, BQZip01. Very true, and very funny! Karanacs 13:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Why not? Aviation has one and so do others? However, for whomever added this, keep in mind that Aggies are resistant to change (see the top of my user page) BQZip01 16:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we would have enough dedicated users to make a portal worthwhile. -Texink 22:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I am the one who wrote this suggestion. I could help out i guess. i am about to graduate, and leave this wonderful school, but i still am here. . . . .

Hi, you should sign up for an account (takes less than 20 seconds) if you would like to help out. Also insert {{user aggie}} onto your userpage when you get the account. --Blueag9 (Talk | contribs) 16:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • A WikiProject would be an another idea to do either instead of or alongside a portal. I'd personally be more interested in helping with a Texas A&M WikiProject than with another portal. If there is uncertainty about getting enough contributors for an A&M-specific project perhaps a Big12 WikiProject would be a good idea? A Big 10 Conference WikiProject was started a couple of months ago but it does not look like it has accomplished too much. The trouble is that looking at all the portals and wikiprojects, there are very few that seem to be able to maintain a great momentum over the long-haul. The University portal is completely dormant. The UT WikiProject is less active than I would like. Even the Texas WikiProject suffers from a lack of activity. One might suppose that there are enough Texans to easily keep such a project going, but maybe it is too big a topic. Johntex\talk 17:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

athletics

i feel we could eliminate boosterism in the atheltics section. i feel the athletics section could be more vague. history should be more about the highlights historically, instead of the recent events. tu didn't even mention their recent national championship in theirs. i feel we don't need "only team that had both a womens and mens team in the NCAA tournment" the recent stuff should be moved to the football pages and the basketball pages. just my thoughts. still haven't joined yet. don't have time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.172.167 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 2007 April 02

  • Hmmm... I just read the portion on Athletics and it doesn't seem to me to be full of boosterism at all. Defeats are mentioned alongside victories. Perhaps just slightly tilted towards the positive/recent. For example, the recent victory over The University of Texas at Austin is mentioned, but the over-all record is not. I don't think that's too bad since this is just a summary. Also, I don't know who tu is (grin), but you will find the UT article does mention their most recent football championship at University_of_Texas_at_Austin#Varsity_sports. Johntex\talk 03:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
maybe just removing the "only team in texas to have both woman's and mens team in the tourney" would be good enough. looking back i guess, the overall history is mentioned in the texas aggie page.

University Template

I think, like many university pages have already done, that a template would be a good way to connect all the disjointed A&M articles. There was some debate a few weeks ago about removing the traditions template, so I included a section for that. This is a rough version I made based on the template used at Duke University. A few pages could fit into several of the categories (like 12th Man), so make changes, comments, etc. -Texink 00:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


Texas A&M University v • d • e 

Academics

Colleges: Agriculture and Life Sciences • Architecture • Business • Education and Human Development • Engineering • Geosciences • Government • Liberal Arts • Science • Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences
Research: Doppler Radar • Integrative Center for Homeland Security • Libraries • Nuclear Reactors • Observatory • Texas Transportation Institute

Athletics

Aggie Athletics • Aggie Basketball • Aggie Football • Battle of the Brazos • Lone Star Showdown • War Hymn
Facilities: Aggie Soccer Stadium • Aggie Softball Complex • Cox-McFerrin Center • G. Rollie White Coliseum • Kyle Field • Olsen Field • Reed Arena
People: Gary Blair • Rob Childress • Steve Denton • Dennis Franchione • Pat Henry • Mark Turgeon

Campus

Aggieland • Buildings • Bush Library & Museum • Easterwood Airport • Facilities • History • Northgate • Research Valley • Riverside Campus

Student life

Aggie Band • AggieCon • The Battalion • Corps of Cadets • KANM • Notable Aggies • Reed Rowdies • Spirit of Aggieland

Traditions

The 12th Man • Aggie Bonfire • Elephant Walk • Gig 'em, Aggies • Howdy • Midnight Yell Practice • Muster • Replant • Reveille • Yell Leaders

Texas A&M University/Archive02

Excellent job, Texink. I like it.--Blueag9 (Talk) 00:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I like it, too. --Ntmg05 00:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

-is there a way to make a bot to put this on all the sites listed on this page -I still don't know how to do wikipedia code,

we shouldn't have notable aggies on student life. should have a seperate section. here are the people i think should be on the front.

need a stub for them Aggie Wranglers, the singing cadets, SCONA, first yell (oldag07)

I love the template, but don't agree that we should separate out particular notables. Karanacs 15:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Added a "notable Aggies section", and added some of my suggestions (oldag07- i know i know, i should join)

I agree with Karanacs, a notables section isn't necessary. Just linking to the main article is fine. Before we start adding organizations like Singing Cadets, Aggie Wranglers, SCONA, we need to agree upon it; we can't add everything to do with A&M on this template (particularly student life aspects). I think SCONA or Singing Cadets might be notable enough (I really don't know much about either), but I wouldn't recommend including Aggie Wranglers. Remember this template should include aspects of A&M that users will most likely be looking for. -Texink 22:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

where do you suggest putting "notable aggies" on that list. it was originally linked on student life. It didn't make sense to me.

Changed size from 80 percent to 90 percent

added "howdy" to tradition section

I just got an account. when do we put this menu on our sites? Oldag07 22:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

When everyone agrees it's complete...I guess that would be now?BlueAg09 (Talk) 22:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I moved the template code to this page:Template:Texas A&M University. Just insert {{Texas A&M University}} towards the bottom of the A&M pages.
Can we have a bot add the template to the A&M pages? I just added the template to all of the colleges.BlueAg09 (Talk) 23:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The huge font size looks tacky. Something more similar to the other templates (font size 2 or 3 bolded) would probably be a good idea. --Ntmg05 23:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
And either make it 100% wide or match it to the TAMU System template. 90% just looks "off." --Ntmg05 23:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
finished the grunt work of putting this template on most of the sites mentioned on the template. I am new at this, so please check my work. btw, do we need a "Texas A&M Colleges" template. our new one superseeds it.Oldag07 03:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Article status

So a featured article might be stretching it, let's try achieving good article status. The criteria is listed here.--Blueag9 (Talk) 08:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I expanded the history section in the main article, per Blueag's request. I think we might also be able to merge the subsections on "Campus" and "Aggieland" and combine the "profile" and "rankings" areas of academics. Any objections? (I also think we need to have a revised to-do list of what to work on for the GA attempt.) Karanacs 15:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and combined these areas. I really don't like the Notable buildings section, but I am not sure how to fix it. I noticed that the Michigan page has a general campus paragraph (maybe our info about BCS and the size of the campus) and then subheadings for their various campuses. We could possibly have a Main Campus and West Campus subsection and describe the various buildings that are notable within those sections? Karanacs 16:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
If there's going to be a large scale reorganization of the site, I think it should be in accordance with the WikiProject Universities suggested outline. --Ntmg05 17:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the rankings belong to their own section. Most of the other articles have their own rankings section. Speaking of rankings, does anyone have access to U.S. News? They are going to release their 2008 rankings soon. I'm pretty sure there are other ranked programs besides the Chemistry Department. In order to keep the rankings consistent, I think we have to mention other departments as well, and not just one.--Blueag9 (Talk) 00:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I compromised by putting the rankings subheading back, but now the section is directly underneath the profile. I don't subscribe to US News, but I do worry that if we include too many rankings the section will get out of hand quickly. Karanacs 14:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

More editing suggestions

do you think it should be moved down the article some. It is listed second on the academics page. i would think other thinks should be ahead of it in order of importance. heck, that is enough information for a separate vision 2020 page.

lets just say if you were to tell a non aggie 10 things about a&m that would be important, i do not think vision 2020 would make that list. a sentence or two should suffice.

Merge undergraduate research with research. makes the article more concise.

see my suggestions above with the new menu. . .. (oldag07)

I like the idea of mentioning Vision 2020 in a sentence or two. Karanacs added the info to the history article, so we can direct the Vision 2020 wikilink there. Any thoughts on where we can add a brief one-two sentence summary of Vision 2020?--Blueag9 (Talk) 20:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture

Here's a guide to finding some of these pop culture references: http://texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?topic_id=854565&forum_id=13. For some of those references I was unable to find a source, or I haven't seen the mentioned movie/TV show. Feel free to add the references listed in there if you can verify them.--Blueag9 (Talk) 00:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely in brokeback mountain. not exactly a respectable reference, but mentioned never the less. don't exactly want to see it again though ...

Guys, I really think that this whole pop culture thing is a bad idea. Do we put every instance where Texas A&M is mentioned in the media, whether intentional or not? I've seen on the aircraft pages that this quickly gets out of hand with everyone mentioning every little instance where the aircraft is (including every game).
I think we should have some guidelines on this, especially if we intend to become an FA someday. I was thinking about limiting TV/movie/music to instances where it either directly affects the plot or is longer than 1 minute of the show/movie/etc. They would go in a "Popular Culture" or maybe "In the news/media" section (I'm open to suggestions for the exact name), but they should include justification as to why they were added. The rest would go under a Trivia" section (since it is interesting to know, but is trivial in nature). For example:
    • Trivia
      • Nick Stokes in the TV show CSI
      • <shudder> Brokeback Mountain reference (that movie is HORRIBLE!-politics is NOT the problem though. The movie sucks)
      • Snoop Dog, Brad Nowell, & The Ramones
      • Back to the Future reference
      • Over There reference
      • Northern Exposure reference
      • This American Life reference
      • Extreme Makeover: Home Edition
      • The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas reference
    • Popular Culture
      • FDT
      • Jeopardy! contestants
      • Cloning info
      • Junction Boys
      • We've Never Been Licked
Thoughts? BQZip01 15:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm on the fence with this one. I disagree with splitting it up into Trivia and Popular Culture though. They all are cultural references, so I don't see the logic in splitting it into two sections. If the aim is being a featured article, a popular culture section isn't what will get us there. For what it's worth, I do like the popular culture section as we have it now, although I might remove the in-passing references to A&M, like a brief mention in one episode of a TV series.-Texink 17:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we can create a separate article like Georgia Tech has.128.194.215.47 20:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

“ Officially the letters "A&M" no longer have any explicit meaning, but they are retained as a link to the university's past.[6] Texas A&M's triple designation as a Land-, Sea-, and Space-Grant institution reflects a broad range of research with ongoing projects funded by agencies such as NASA, the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and the Office of Naval Research. Working in partnership with state agencies such as the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and Texas Cooperative Extension, Texas A&M has a direct presence in every county in the state. ”

I find the flow between those two sentences there a bit awkward, is there any way we can rephrase the second sentence? That sentence has been there for a while now.BlueAg09 (Talk) 07:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Historical Images

Does anyone know what the copyright status is for a lot of the pictures in the Cushing Historical Images Collection? [3] I've written to them to ask, but haven't gotten a reply yet. I know we can use the pre-1923 photos, but many of the photos are undated and don't list a photographer. I'm unclear as to whether the others are in the public domain because they belong to a state agency or not. Karanacs 14:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a complex area and there may be no easy answer. One thing I can tell you is that state agencies do not necesarily put their work into the public domain. The US Government generally does, but even thn there are limits. For instance, works of a US govt employee while on duty (and not classified or secret) are generally public domain. Works made by government contractors typically are not. Some states follow this lead, but most don't. I don't think Texas considers their works to be PD. Johntex\talk 15:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see also Work of the United States Government. Johntex\talk 15:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
And also Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_13#Template:PD-CAGov. Johntex\talk 15:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Each of the pictures have the following message under "Restrictions": "It is the users responsibility to secure permission from the copyright holders for publication of any materials. Permission must be obtained in writing prior to publication. Please contact the Cushing Library for further information."

I don't think any of the pictures are in the public domain.BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sing Cadets and other missing organizations

I am not much of a writer. I emailed the singing cadets and the aggie wranglers for their input on a wikipedia entry. those are definitely important aggie organizations. I am not exactly sure how to start a stub. could someone help me. thanks Thanks.

recent revisions

I have made my first major revision of a wikipedia page. I added a paragraph to the texas a&m riverside campus page. I was wondering if any of yall can peer review it to see if i did it right. thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverside_Campus Oldag07 16:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Congrats, OldAg07 on your first big revision :) Don't forget, for ease of linking, use [[ ]] around the title of a wikipedia article and we can go right there. (ex Riverside Campus) Karanacs 19:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I merged the riverside campus articles. not exactly sure how to delete the older one. most of the links to the article refering to that campus went to the Riverside Campus page, so i moved everything there. Thoughts?Oldag07 16:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Simply nominate it for speedy deletion. I added some more info and links to the page. I think that the Department of Homeland Security did testing there for gates/fences/barriers that stop trucks. Lots of that was shown in the news. Any information that people have on that would be very appropriate on this page. — BQZip01 — talk 16:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Instead of speedy deletion, a better option may be to just replace the text with a redirect: #REDIRECT [[Insert target page here]] Johntex\talk 17:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

template

I have been trying to add a "hide" button to our template like the hide button on the big 12 template or the Association of American Universities one.

v • d • e
Big 12 Conference
North Division
South Division

we just have so much stuff on the bottom. it would be nice if we had a way to minimize it. it would look a lot less cluttered. the code is confusing me though. and id like to know your opinions on it. Oldag07 04:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

bonfire history

do you think a sentence on bonfire collapsewould be good in the 1950-2000 part of the history section. it is something people still associate with a&m heavily. something like :

"Tragedy struck Texas A&M when the popular A&M tradition, Bonfire, collapsed during construction on November 18, 1999. 12 participants were killed and 27 were injured." Oldag07 15:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It already has its place in the article, but a short blurb and link wouldn't hurt. — BQZip01 — talk 16:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

done. i think is good to mention it in the history section on the main page. I think it is more respectful to have it on then off. also one of the not so fine moments in our history helps reduce any image of boosterism (although i think we have done quite well so far reducing it).Oldag07 16:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Concur — BQZip01 — talk 16:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture

We had a question in the peer review about how to properly cite some of the stuff in the popular culture section, as some FA reviewers really don't like references to myspace or youtube. It is unlikely that we'd be able to find any additional sources for some of these. My question...do you think it is important to keep the popular culture section, which basically lists ways that A&M is mentioned on tv? To me, this doesn't really tell people anything about the university, and I'd rather take it out. What do you guys think? Karanacs 14:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


Images

The second peer review asked for an additional picture in the Academics section. Does anyone have a picture that would show off Research Park at all, or know of any already uploaded images that we could/should use here? Karanacs 15:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I will still be on campus this summer. weather is crappy today. but ill take some pictures of research park. Honestly i don't have anyway to upload my pictures. I left my computer at home to get "work done" this semester. been using scc computers, hence the changing ip addresses i have. I should have it this summer. btw, that rec center picture is ugly. ill get a new one of that too.Oldag07 13:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
btw, for the history, the campus masterplan would be a great picture to put up in the 2000-present picture. [4] Page 13 especially. we should also right a blurb on the the campus master plan on the main page. i am busy today. btw, am i the only student on this board. i know my name is "old ag" but i won't be that until next friday. i am still a student. Oldag07 13:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking pictures :) Good luck with finals!! Karanacs 13:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
i think the master plan won some awards too. yea, we should write about it. it is a big deal. . . . ill do it after final if no one else volunteers.

http://www.tamu.edu/campusplan/

http://newsarchives.tamu.edu/stories/04/082704-4.html

http://www.thebatt.com/news/2004/08/31/News/Campus.Master.Plan.Wins.Design.Awards-707602.shtml

http://www.tamu.edu/home/spotlight/archives/construction.html Oldag07 13:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The master plan is part of Vision 2020, and I think some of the info has already been included on the history page. I don't think it is necessary to put it on the main page -- there is really nothing newsworthy about the buildings other than that they are new and more uptodate. Karanacs 15:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Table of Contents

The automated peer review complained about the length of the table of contents, and I agree that it is a little hard to read. Would it make more sense to restrict the TOC tojust the top level headings, or would you rather leave it as is? I vote for top-level only. Karanacs 15:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

i don't mind. either way. The banner on the side is kind of large in the first place.Oldag07 19:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

This article is very good, but not quite good enough. Some issues that need addressing before GA can be awarded:

  • Referencing issues:
    • First paragraph of History:1870-1900 is unreferenced, additionally it contains a quote which is not referenced to a specific source as well.
    • Traditions section is entirely unreferenced
    • Athletics section makes several superlative claims and quotes several statistics which are unreferenced.
  • In Pop Culture section contains some sketchy facts, such as "So and so wore a T-shirt in a random episode of a TV show". These have to go as probably excessively trivial. Also, the This American Life citation is unreferenced.
  • Image issues: Some biggies here:
    • The artists rendition of the observatory is copyright, and Fair Use only applies here (and this is EXPRESSLY listed by the liscencing tag on the image) IF the image was being used to discuss the work of art in question. The article does not give critical commentary on the painting, it only gives critical commentary on the SUBJECT of the painting, which is not covered by Fair Use. This has got to go.
    • "Image:Academic Buildind and Sul Ross.jpg" has a copyright tag which claims that the copyright holder has released it for free use, but no source for the image is given, nor is there any way to verify this information. Please update the image information page to give complete source and copyright information so the image usage can be verified.
    • The Snoop Dogg image hardly qualifies as being used in "Critical Commentary". Saying "Hey look, Snoop Dogg is wearing an A&M T-Shirt" hardly qualifies as critical commentary. As such, that image has got to go.

There you go. The hold will expire in 1 week. If all of the above changes are not made in that time frame, the article will be failed. Once all of the above fixes ARE made, please drop a line at my talk page, and I pass the article. If you feel this hold was mishandled in any way, please see WP:GA/R to seek remediation. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please line out completed items (see below for details). — BQZip01 — talk 06:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

GA fixes

Summary

First of all, great job on the basics. This article is slowly getting better day-by-day (then changed by some teasip with a grudge...then reverted to its glorious self again...). Please place a comment here if you are working on it and when you are finished correcting. — BQZip01 — talk 05:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

1. 1st paragraph

First paragraph of History:1870-1900 is unreferenced, additionally it contains a quote which is not referenced to a specific source as well. I'll take care of these references. It might take a few days, but I'll get it. If anyone wants to chip in, the more the merrier. — BQZip01 — talk 05:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was easy. Done. — BQZip01 — talk 06:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

2. Traditions section

Traditions section is entirely unreferenced Let's get some references. With all those websites out there, it should be easy to find at least one reference. — BQZip01 — talk 05:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have referenced this section. Karanacs 13:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

3. Athletics claims

Let's cite those "several superlative claims and...statistics." — BQZip01 — talk 05:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I couldn't find a citation for was that the football game is the most watched in the rivalry. Can someone else look for one, please? Karanacs 14:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't find a reference but i own this book: http://www.amazon.com/Backyard-Brawl-Inside-Blood-Between/dp/0609610538. i don't have it with me at a&m, but i am sure i can find something on the rivalry to quote. i can have it in a month or so.Oldag07 15:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
That's a good idea, OldAg07. I have that book at home and I'll look through it tonight. Karanacs 17:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Every sentence of the athletics is now referenced. — BQZip01 — talk 18:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
This sentance: The most-watched event in the rivalry is the annual football game held the day after Thanksgiving has 8 reference tags. I mean really. Claims need a reference, but this seems excessive. Please tell me you weren't trying to make a WP:POINT...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not. I was simply trying to prove the given assertion, "The most-watched event." The attendance for each game is given through links on those sites (to the best of my knowledge it is not compiled anywhere else in one website; if it was I'd be happy to use it). I think some of the confusion arised from your vague assertion, "...makes several superlative claims and quotes several statistics which are unreferenced." If you had been more specific, I think we would have glossed over it. As it was stated, I think we were just trying to cover all of the bases. — BQZip01 — talk 03:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

4. Pop Culture

Let's quickly come up with some standards for Pop Culture so we can add references/delete excess. My humble opinion is for anything that references A&M for more than 3 minutes or 10% of the media format (whichever is less) or is an integral part of a plot. Thoughts? — BQZip01 — talk 05:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, only the 2 movies that were explicitly about A&M ("We've Never Been Licked" and "The Junction Boys") deserve any mention in the article. I think that reference to these could easily be included in the history section. I would remove all the rest. Karanacs 14:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I deleted all by the two movies about A&M and the FDT references (these guys were sought after for any drill team role and played the title role in place of the Marine Corps Silent Drill team (check the credits if you don't believe me). I thought that was pretty noteworthy considering they take almost 4 minutes to do a drill in their opening credits. — BQZip01 — talk 16:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
What about songs "fightin texas aggie" by dub miller, or that new song "we bleed maroon"?Oldag07 14:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

5. Image issues

Observatory

Image has to go. Anyone have a better image to throw in? If not, I'll delete it in a few days. — BQZip01 — talk 05:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked through the A&M images that have already been uploaded and the only one I saw that might fit in the research section is actually a night shot of the O&M building: Image:Williams-O%26M-Buildings-TAMU.jpg

Karanacs 14:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Just replace it. We can always come up with better images later. — BQZip01 — talk 15:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and deleted the image (we can't use it anyway) and replaced it with the other one so we can pass the review. We can always add another image in here later. Just make sure it will pass muster (pun intended). — BQZip01 — talk 16:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Academic Building & Sul Ross

If anyone has the image info, please add it. Better still, if someone is on campus, please just go and take a picture, upload it, and we'll simply replace it. Otherwise it will be deleted in a few days. — BQZip01 — talk 05:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

BlueAg09 had already uploaded a version of this picture that he took himself and has released the rights to. I substituted that image for the one with the strange licensing. Karanacs 14:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I got another of the academic building if you would like it. i am going to run by research park and take that picture. where is the obervatory anyways?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Academicbuildinga_m2.jpgOldag07 15:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The observatory is by the nuclear research station...on the far side of Easterwood Airport. Good luck getting there. How about a picture of the newest engineering building? — BQZip01 — talk 15:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure. ill live within walking distance of the brown chemical engineering building this summer. didn't make the observatory today. got a picture of the entrance of research park. I also got some of the bonfire memorial. not sure if you need any. Like i said earlier, i don't have access to a camera card reader until friday at earlest. I get a new laptop for graduation! ill try to post by sunday. you want any of the new training indoor training facility? Oldag07 19:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oldag07 20:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)there is a picture of the new engineering building already in the wikimedia commonsOldag07 20:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Snoop Dogg

Image deleted IAW with request. — BQZip01 — talk 05:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sbisa

btw, i have been trying to write an article on sbisa dining hall. I remember in the past reading a good website on the history of sbisa. however, now i cna't find it anymore. been looking though libraries.tamu.edu, and i can't find anything there either. there used to be a great website with info on the history of that building. oh wellOldag07 15:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Expanded Residential life section

i wrote a real rough draft version. could you guys edit this.

For non ROTC aggies, dorms are called "halls". http://reslife.tamu.edu To encourage involvement, each hall has a democratically elected governing committee called "hall council". Every on campus resident is considered a member of the residence hall association, the largest recognized student organization on campus. http://www.rha.tamu.edu-a.googlepages.com/ Two delegates from every dorm meet biweekly in an RHA meeting to vote on affairs pertaining to on campus residents. http://media.www.thebatt.com/media/storage/paper657/news/2003/02/18/Opinion/Students.Misrepresented-514735.shtml In 2004 Texas A&M's residence hall association, the largest in the state, won school of the year at the Texas Residence Hall Association Annual Conference. http://media.www.thebatt.com/media/storage/paper657/news/2004/04/13/News/Am.Honored.As.School.Of.The.Year.At.Rha.Conference-658466.shtml Another organization that represents each hall is the National Residence Hall Honorary. http://nrhh.tamu.edu/

The university also owns apartment style living area's, mostly inhabited by graduate students. http://reslife.tamu.edu/ua/ Popular, off campus dormitories include: the cambridge, with also houses the woman's soccer team and the baseball team, and the Tradition on Northgate in with the football team is housed http://www.livethetradition.com/. http://media.www.thebatt.com/media/storage/paper657/news/2003/10/24/News/Athletic.Teams.Score.New.Housing-538497.shtml Oldag07 22:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

First revision?Oldag07 01:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's not make any big changes right now while we are under consideration for GA status. Information about the residence halls is also kinda generic -- most US universities have on-campus housing with the same type of governing structure. If we decide to create a separate article about residential life, or the campus in general, we can definitely include this info, though. Karanacs 01:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
yea, just been trying to finish that checklist on the top. but yes, i think we are are making progress on the good article status. i just read the Texas one. it definitely needs some work.Oldag07 01:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)