Talk:Texas Tech University/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Natalie Maines

Did she graduate from Texas Tech? If not, she's not technically an alumna, even if she attended the school. Maybe that section should be "Notable Alumni and Former Students" or something, or she should be removed. --Myles Long 20:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

She didn't even attend the University. She was just born in Lubbock Texas.
Fine, I removed her. --Myles Long 28 June 2005 15:06 (UTC)
She did attend briefly in Summer II and Fall 2005 semesters. Randallking 00:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Edited

I recently put some material on Texas Tech but my source was Texas Tech University web site. After reading about US copyright policies, I thought it may not be right to put that material which is not mine. And hence deleted all the contents of my addition. Will that be all right?

Depends what kind of information you put on the website. If you can give more details I'm sure the community will try to help you out in any way. --Woody Couder

STD infestation

i have herd that TTU has the highest rate of STD inflicted students. i have no grounds to prove this upon but maybe someone out there does...

I'll look for some info. I believe the stat is per capita for the city of Lubbock and not specifically TTU. I remember reading an article in the student newspaper regarding the STD rate at TTU and it being about avg. for most other universities. But I'll trty to find an article about the Lubbock STD/I rate. Woody Couder
False. Texas State University-San Marcos has a MUCH HIGHER STD rate than Texas Tech University.
There is no possible way that STD statistics could be known short of testing every student. Even if they tried to take a sample to extrapolate the percentage, the likelihood of a sampling error would be immense. This rumor, wherever it came from, and the rumor about TSU are probably either A) rival-student manufactured or B) the product of some asinine local journalist trying to create a shocking story. Moreover, considering the turnover-rate of college students, by the time a study of this nature could be conducted properly half of those in the study would have graduated. - Elred

Vandalism or Bold Edit?

All, please take a look at the edits on 27-Dec-2005 by 71.113.229.28. Is this vandalism or bold editing? I'm still new here so I'm not sure. I'm pretty sure the Mr. Papagiorgio reference is vandalism, so I'm reverting that immediately. Please take a look at the edits and revert if you feel appropriate. Lbbzman 03:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"Biggest" Claims

I just added some "Citation Needed" claims next to two of the claims in the page

  1. Vietnam Collection. Can someone please find a citation that shows that this is one of the biggest/best vietnam collections?
  2. Campus Size. Can someone show a rank or figure to back this claim up?


A wikipedia entry should contain an NPOV where comparitive quality statement are backed up by facts. I don't doubt these claims are true, but to stay in the entry they need to be backed up. Dothivalla 22:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added a reference to the Vietnam archive being one of the biggest. That is a different claim than being the "best." I'll keep looking for a reference that confirms it's one of the best. Lbbzman 04:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
The cite you found definitely supports the line as currently written. Thanks! I am still looking for the Campus value cite though.Dothivalla 04:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Judging from the comments passing around Stanford Talk, it looks like Texas Tech doesn't have a chance at having the largest campus in the nation. It might be best to just drop the claim theway Stanford and Purdue did. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stanford_University#.22second-largest_university_complex_in_the_world.22 Dothivalla 07:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the "biggest campus" claim. Lbbzman 03:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
http://www.studyusa.com/factshts/ttu.asp?s=21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.135.11.179 (talk • contribs)
The cite offered for the biggest campus claim is pretty darn weak. "The main campus of Texas Tech University is one of the largest in the United States." It gives no numbers and just looks like a line someone put into an advertisement to fill out a paragraph. The advertisement didn't come from Texas Tech itself but from an oprgainization called Study USA trying to sell English classes to non-speakers. As the counter claims for biggest campus are substantially larger than the size figures for Texas Tech I don't see a reason to put the claim back in. Dothivalla 15:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
It's land acreage makes it "one of the largest" according to official numbers. http://www.depts.ttu.edu/ttpd/history.php CrIms0n 14:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Sports Illustrated once called Tech the ugliest campus in the nation, but who cares - instead, why not put in useful information about Tech? Wikipedia:Avoid Academic Boosterism H2O 06:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Citation for over Billion claim?

I may have found a credible resource for the over $1 billion claim. http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/PDF/1149.PDF The state of Texas uses these official numbers when insuring the Universities. The amount invested in secondary education seems paltry when considering the size of texas. CrIms0n 21:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Three new articles

Just helping out my fellow Big12 school here - created Texas Tech Red Raiders, The Masked Rider, and Raider Red today. I'm starting out with a copy/paste from the info that was here already and expanding from there. Hook 'em! Johntex\talk 01:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

My response is a bit late, but thanks. I've worked on all three of those articles now. I'm especially trying to add to Texas Tech Red Raiders. --Wordbuilder 16:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Flagship status

Hello. I have reverted the edit to the infobox stating that Texas Tech is a flagship Texas university. While it's true that Tech is the flagship university of the Texas Tech system, the term "Flagship state university" has a certain connotation (at least in Texas). I believe that the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University are the only designated flagship institutions. This may have changed. If so, please rerevert but cite an appropriate source. Cheers, Lbbzman 00:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I am going to go ahead and rerevert the addition of "Flagship" to the description in the infobox. [1] states both, "Texas has two flagship universities - The University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University, all campuses combined" and "'The University of Houston and Texas Tech University must become flagship universities,' Rylander said." Now, this article is from 2000, so as I mentioned above, things may have changed. If so, please just provide a source. The fact that Texas Tech University if the flagship institution of the Texas Tech University System is adequately mentioned in the text of the article. Please discuss here before adding "Flagship" back to the infobox. Cheers, Lbbzman 13:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you Libbzman - good change. Johntex\talk 16:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Although 70.129.183.229 hasn't agreed to discuss changes on this talk page, he or she has rightly pointed out that University of North Texas (and upon further research, University of Houston) also put the "Flagship" claim in their infobox. While calling any of these universities a "Flagship State University" is clearly incorrect (see my previous citation above), I wonder if a compromise would be appropriate. How about something like "State University. Flagship of the Texas Tech University System." If I can find a consensus for this article, I'll make the same proposal for the UNT and UH articles. I do agree with 70.129.183.229 that Public and State University tend to be redundant. Cheers, Lbbzman 11:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
As I said in one of my edit summaries when reverting the anonymous editor - the fact that one or more boosters have gotten a hold of the U of H and UNT infoboxes makes absolutely no difference. Citing wrong information elsewhere in Wikipedia is the absolute worst possible reason to make this article also in error. Johntex\talk 16:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely. However, I was hoping that my proposal would be factually accurate and at the same time convey the "TTU is the flagship university of the TTU System, but not a flagship university of the State of Texas" message that is in question. If putting "State University. Flagship of the Texas Tech University System" still misrepresents TTU's status, then I don't want it in the infobox. Lbbzman 16:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
In principle I agree with you that compromise is possible so long as accuracy is maintained. However (1) I don't want to invent a term - so I would want to see one or more notable references that Texas Tech is generally called the flagship of the Texas Tech University System. I don't doubt that it is, but maybe it isn't - maybe they usually call it the "central campus" or "lead campus" or something else entirely. (2) As you point out, anonymous is not exactly engaged in discussion on this point. Therefore, I don't see the need to do back flips to find some solution if we have no reason to suspect that anonymous would support/respect the new solution anyway. Johntex\talk 17:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Good point regarding finding out whether "flagship" is even a term used to describe TTU in relation to the system. A quick Google search [2] of texastech.edu (the system's website) doesn't show any references to Texas Tech University being the flagship institution of the system. I haven't been able to find any references when browsing texastech.edu or ttu.edu, either. I'm going to again revert the current anon wording. (You beat me to it.) Lbbzman 17:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately it will be a while before he is able to join in any dialog on this subject. I encountered the personal attacks of User:70.129.183.229 and User:Docbrown777 on Image talk:Mike leach.jpg and its associated Talk page. I have blocked them both (even though they are probably the same editor) for one month for personal attacks and incivility. Johntex\talk 17:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • To the vandal: What you have done is to vandalize this and other pages then offer that if we open a discussion with you that you will stop vandalizing while the discussion is going on. That is not nearly good enough. You are a blocked user using a sockpuppet accont to evade a block. As such, it is within policy to block you indefinitely. Speaking here for myself only, I am personally willing to give you another chance on three conditions: (1) you apologize for the vandalism you have done (2) you agree to serve out serve out the remainder of your one month block (5 days from whenever you agree) (3) you promise whatever the outcome of the discussion you will not return to vandalism. Johntex\talk 05:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Texas Tech University System Seal

To whom it may concern, please update the main page University Seal. The University recently spent 200,000 dollars getting the University seal upgraded and requires all information discussing tech to use the updated seal. The seal no longer has the cotton, please update the main page as I do not know how but please refence this site, with your eraider login http://www.texastech.edu/identityguidelines/index.php?

Really? I would have designed a new seal for half that.  :-) Seriously, the link you provide requires some sort of access account/password asking for social security and the like. When you say "Main Page" I assume you mean Texas Tech University. The logo there seems to be the same as the one at Texas Tech's Official Website. Therefore, it seems like we do have the correct seal. Johntex\talk 20:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


No the login is for TTU students only that is why I stated eraider to use your eraider password. The 200,000 was for a complete marketing of the university including posters, seals, commercials,etc. If somebody has a eraider login and knows how to edit the pictures please update the seals with the link I provided, THANKS!

I see what you mean about the image being without the cotton now.
Anyone can upload an image to Wikipedia, just cick the link on the left titled "Upload file" and follow the directions. Be sure to explain the source, and use the proper copryright tag for a logo: {{logo}} - Since this article is semi-protected at the moment due to vandalism, you can put type the filename here (just the file name, no fancy coding) and I can add it to the article for you.
If you don't want to upload it we'll have to wait for someone else since I can't access the site. I could take the one of the front page of the TT website, but that one is pretty small. Johntex\talk 22:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The only one that I see as being portrayed incorrectly is the one in the TTU system box. It shouldn't be the TTU seal - here is a line seal that looks similar but is the correct version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TTUS_Seal_B.jpg Gen 01:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I recently corrected this. The only difference is that the TTUS seal says "System" and the TTU seal doesn't. --Wordbuilder 21:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the seal at the top is correct. There was a whole deal where they were going to remove the cotten and a bunch of alums complained so they kept it in the seal. Now there is a simpler shield that is used that does not include the cotton but as far as the seal is concerned the cotton never left. In fact the only diffrent between the new and old seal is that the book is not tilted anymore. That 200,000 bucks is another matter too. A lot of alums and other people connected with the school felt that that was just wasted money.

Masked Rider

I've seen conflicting information on whether the 2006 Masked Rider, Amy Bell, is a junior or senior. A New Mexico newspaper near her home town of Kermit, TX, stated senior. A Tech release stated junior. Her introduction during the November 4, 2006, Texas Tech vs. Baylor game said she is a senior. My guess is senior but, since I can't nail it down, I removed that portion and just stated her major. --Wordbuilder 15:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

-Check here, it says she's a junior:

http://www.depts.ttu.edu/centerforcampuslife/MaskedRider/current.aspx

Flagship information

Although Tech is not currently a flagship of the State of Texas, it is the flagship of the university system. Some articles about the drive to make Tech the 3rd state flagship system:

Interesting, at least I thought so, and I added a bit about it into the entry. Locriani 20:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The Daily Toreador

I agree that it should be merged and a redirect created. Even though I get the email version of the paper, I didn't even know there was a Wikipedia article for it. --Wordbuilder 13:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree - The Daily Toreador is a newspaper, although linked to the university, there are quite a few references to the newspaper as a separate entity from the university. It would only complicate the understanding of the University if this was added into the article as a separate section. Instead, it would probably be wiser to increase the links to the Daily Toreador article, and expand and wikify the Daily Toreador entry in this encyclopaedia. Locriani 04:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Western Courier has its own article, and WIU is no Texas Tech. Rklawton 04:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't Merge I'm no way connected to Texas Tech besides knowing a couple of people know have attended that school. Wikipedia has several hundreds of university student-run newspapers articles. A large United States public school such as Texas Tech with a student population over 30,000 should have its own student newspaper article. The Daily Toreador "stubby" article encourages (hopefully in an informative way) visitors to expand the article. By the way, don't let my only "third" contribution to this "encyclopedia" fool you. I've been editing Wikipedia for over 3-years now. Just want to have a fresh start. (Didn't get ban or want to use "sockpuppetery" vote) --Souphanousinphone 01:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The responses bring up great points which I had not considered. The Daily Toreador article should be increased in size and more links created to it. If it gets added to the Texas Tech article, then bulked up, someone will want to split it. So, let's just save ourselves the trouble. I change my response to do not merge --Wordbuilder 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
No one has supported merging so I am removing the tag. --Wordbuilder 13:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Dairy Barn Photo

I cut the Dairy Barn photo for two reasons. The angle of the photo made the building appear to be in a very dilapidated condition, and the photo generally did not give a good representation of the campus. The page currently has no photos of buildings on campus, some of which are gorgeous, and I feel that having that as the sole image of the campus is a little misleading. I plan to take several photos of the campus soon, including the dairy barn, and I will add them. I think I'll probably do it shortly after Arbor Day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.69.143.134 (talk • contribs)

Very dilapidated as opposed to somewhat dilapidated? There are a lot of very nice buildings but that area looks like a broken down barn in the middle of a (currently with the rain) mud puddle. Anyone know if there are plans to give the Dairy Barn and its immediate surroundings a little TLC? --Wordbuilder 17:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Let me clarify that I am very much in support of the Dairy Barn being fully restored and becoming an integral part of the campus in honor of Tech's history. --Wordbuilder 17:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is the problem with degrees of dilapidation? I have heard plans for converting the Dairy Barn into some sort of student recreation facility; one even of it becoming a bar. While the latter is highly unlikely, I'm sure they do intend to put it to some use. The rebranding of the school is in full force right now. I expect they will try to turn that into something more useful and attractive soon. All that aside, however, the photo of the Dairy Barn was unflattering to the campus. It's basically the ugliest thing on the Tech campus and unless its little story is told there isn't much point in having a photo of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elred (talk • contribs) 20:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC). - Elred
I have no problem with "degrees of dilapidation." The original comment (was that written by you?), said the picture made it look "very dilapidated." Right now, the building does look bad and it's going to be difficult to get a photo of it that makes it appear otherwise. I don't disagree with removing the picture. The Dairy Barn needs its own article and, once it's fixed up, a nice picture to go along with it. Best of luck. --Wordbuilder 03:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The Dairy Barn has its own article. On a side note, since it's on the National Register of Historic Places, there's a limit on what can be done with it. Rklawton 03:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually knew that but had forgotten. The limitations for buildings on the National Register are not as restrictive as they are sometimes made out to be. Many such building have been modified and repurposed. The renovations, though, cannot be so great as to significantly change the look of the building compared to how it appeared during its period of significancy. Being listed on a state or local historic register may come with its own set of restrictions but I don't think that applies here. --Wordbuilder 14:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Better photos people

Come on. It is like people adding photos aren't even trying. The Biology building?!?! That is the ugliest building on campus. What's next a picture of the east side of Jones stadium?

There are plenty of good looking buildings to take pictures of and add to this article.

I'm about to do some work on this. If anyone wants to help, take some hi-res shots and put them up and I'll format them. I think we should make a section on the page entitled something like "Campus and Buildings" that has little articles about the individual buildings and things like fountains, statues, art pieces etc. I plan to wait until just after Arbor Day so everything looks really polished, and preferably a day with a clear blue sky. I agree about the photo of the Bio building. While I don't mind it being included, it certainly isn't representative of the campus' theme or beauty. --Elred 05:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone just added a photo of the admin building and the masked rider that were taken directly from Tech's official website. Those should probably be pulled. --Elred 00:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I did my best regarding the photos; feel free to replace them with better photos, as Elred has already done. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoever added all those new pictures I'd just like to say thanks. Those are some good shots. Also thanks to whoever(maybe the same person) who re-did the Jones Stadium and the United Spirit Arena pages.

I believe the thanks for all of those goes to Elred. He did a great job. --Wordbuilder 02:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I think one of our vandals is a, slightly over-weight, freshman at A&M named Trevor Mitchell. He's edited three pages, including a form of the word "shit" in each. ...does sound like an Aggie though.----Elred 03:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Traditions

None of the information in the "Traditions" section is sourced. School lore is all well and fine, but this is an encyclopedia article. This section should be removed if supporting sources can not be found. Rklawton 15:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

By way of clarification, I mean supporting sources that don't come from the school's own website (i.e., self-sourced). The school's website helps support the idea that these traditions actually exist, but external sources featuring each event as its subject would lend credibility to the idea that each tradition is actually notable and worth including in an encyclopedia article. I suspect such sources exist, and the article would really benefit. Otherwise, the article looks more like a condensed version of the TTU website, and that's not what Wikipedia is about. Rklawton 19:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Gotcha. I'll see what I can come up with. --Wordbuilder 20:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, Rklawton, are you interested in helping gather references that you feel are better fitted to the article? If so, please pitch in. As it is now, I have to agree with Elred that the section should remain untagged. Look at the articles for other schools, such as University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University, and you will see that they cite their respective university websites as well. --Wordbuilder 21:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not much of a fan of over-moderation, especially in such a nebulous area as this (specifically "traditions.") First, I'd be left to wonder what would motivate someone to address this (or these) instances over VASTLY more liberal cases (some of which Wordbuilder just mentioned.) Secondly, I'd ask what third party source, generally, takes it upon themselves to publish an article about the ringing of bells or the wrapping of a university campus statue in crepe paper prior to football games. Being a university tradition, localized, the university press and its outlets are the only ones who know and/or care enough to commit it to print. Whether it's globally trivial is unimportant. This entry is here so that people who seek it can find the information; for them it is noteworthy. Is it really going to add credence to the article that we have several [1][2]'s after a mention that the saddle tramps ring the victory bells? That will sure put that raging debate to sleep. Should we also source that Texas Tech is, in fact, located in Lubbock? Do we need to source that? --Elred 21:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
As an experienced editors, we know that the "some other article has this" argument isn't valid. We fix articles here one at a time. If you wish to fix those other articles, then please do! Next, we aren't here to serve as TTU boosters. Websites already exist dedicated to promoting the school and its traditions. People who want to learn all about TTU from TTU's point of view would be silly to visit Wikipedia when they could access this and a lot more of the same at the TTU website. This is an encyclopedic article, and we have rules about self-sourcing, reliability, and especially notability. If none of these traditions have been the subject of an article, then that's probably because they aren't notable. If you wish to promote TTU, then I suggesting finding appropriate sources for these traditions – or more usefully, focus on the very real and material contributions TTU is making to the world. It's a sad fact that the section describing statue wrapping is about as long as each of the articles about the university's various academic colleges. Rklawton 21:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I did a little reading on your discussion page...interesting. Nice use of the Royal We by the way. You seem to mention "notability" as if it is something that falls at your personal discretion. Someone who is seeking information about a university is very likely to find traditions and student activities noteworthy. In fact, those entries alone may be the target of the search for information. You are not the judge of noteworthiness. Frankly, it's absurd that you would come in here under the guise of a volunteer moderator and attempt to make that implication. By that standard, over 95% of the wikipedia articles should be culled. Clearly you've missed the point. Wikipedia is better than a traditional encyclopedia because it has the ability to be updated by those who have specific interest in, and/or access to, a topic. You want to trim everything that's not in Brittanica? We need to find something better to do with our time. ...and 'websites already exist dedicated to' almost everything. Wikipedia is a compendium of that information.--Elred 22:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Given that less than 5% of our articles have reached FA status, I think your 95% estimate a little low, but you're on the right track. Editors of various articles should strive to make each article the best it can be. You have a vested interest in Tech, so I'm surprised you would like to attract students based on its traditions rather than on the quality or value of the education they might receive. I find it sad that you would defend a section on statue wrapping while the article on your business school claims ZERO notable graduates. I would think a business student might take an interest in reporting the return on the education investment his school's alumni might expect, but perhaps there's a big market for experienced statue wrappers. Think about it. My suggestions regarding this article were made to help improve it. Your approach helps ensure the matriculating class expects a four (or five) year party. Now, which approach benefits Tech? Rklawton 03:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The "some other article has this" argument is valid since nearly everything on Wikipedia is based on guidelines which are formulated by community consensus. The aforementioned University of Texas at Austin article is rated as GA-Class on the quality scale for WikiProject Texas. This is only two notches below FA (or featured class). --Wordbuilder 00:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The Pokémon test essay explains why this argument is not valid. It's applied to AfD debates, but the only difference is we're talking about a section rather than an article, and I'm not proposing we remove the section as I am suggesting that this section should include reliable sources indicating each listed tradition's notability. Rklawton 04:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's apply your logic to the article United States. The following citations point to works of the country's federal government and, therefore, make the information self-sourced. If third-party citations cannot be found, then the related portions of the article should be deleted:
  • Ref. 1 -- Population (from census.gov)
  • Ref. 4 -- Population (from cnn.com; third-party but points to the U.S. Census Bureau as its source)
  • Ref. 8 -- Economy (from cia.gov)
  • Ref. 12 -- History (from loc.gov)
  • Ref. 13 -- History (from nasa.gov)
Those are just the first five.
I've not argued against listing third-party sources in the Traditions section of the Texas Tech University article. I think it's a good idea. However, the citations from the school are adequate enough that the section can remain untagged.
It is unfortunate that you invest time in criticizing the article but no time in improving it. You ask, "Which approach benefits Tech?" One sure answer is, not yours. --Wordbuilder 14:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Also, if you're interested in the ROI for an education at Tech, there is a whole article for that at List of Texas Tech University people. There is no need to repeat each of these names in the main articles. --Wordbuilder 14:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I happen to come across this conversation. If you find something in another Wiki article, that doesn't give it enough credit for it to be in the article as a citation. If the article is GA, more than likely the statement has been cited, take that citation, find what you want and add it to the article with a citation.--Kranar drogin 13:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

No one was advocating using other Wikipedia articles as citations. The reference to a GA-Class article I made above was to dispute the idea that drawing information from the related school's website is not permitted. --Wordbuilder 14:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Bob, let me start out with a couple of quotes. "It's a sad fact that the section describing statue wrapping is about as long as each of the articles about the university's various academic colleges." "I find it sad that you would defend a section on statue wrapping while the article on your business school claims ZERO notable graduates." This, to me, sounds like mere smart-ass trash talk. The whole TT page and its sub-pages are a work in progress. I created that business school page you're addressing a few months ago. It's incomplete. Does that mean we should strip a related page to match said state of incompletion? Nope. We should let the two pieces continue to grow as they will. ...and as for your opinion of what is sad, here's mine: an "MBA" whose profession is "digital" photographer/volunteer wikipedia nanny. You might be better served to upgrade your own business website (maybe to a "geocities" site or something.) So, off you go.--Elred 16:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Archive 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.