Talk:Texas A&M University/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archived

All previous talk pages have been archived. Time for post FA nomination comments. Oldag07 03:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Since this article is a FA, should we put a lock on it to prevent vandalism. we still get vandalism occasionally, and we don't need too many new edits on it. Oldag07 04:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not customary except maybe around the time it's on the main page. I noticed most vandalisms are promptly dealt with and no article is ever "finished". --Claygate 12:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Main page

In order for this article to appear on Wikipedia's main page, there must be a request put up here. There is a template for the request in there. From what I've gathered, it looks like it takes a while for it to get on the main page. The picture that accompanies the summary must have a free-use license, so we can't use any of the statue pictures or the logo. I was thinking maybe we can take a picture of the campus from this view or this view. We don't have to worry about copyrights here since according to US copyright law, the photographer can choose the copyright for pictures of buildings (given they are taken at a public place, that is.) I actually won't be able to go to Aggieland until school starts in the fall, so Oldag will have to take the pic, if he can. BlueAg09 (Talk) 19:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The campus of A&M page has a gorgeous picture of academic plaza. Oldag07 20:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The first one is impossible because of the construction of the life science center. the second one, ill try. today the weather isn't too good.

I wonder where the second picture was taken from. You think it was from one of the top floors at the Plaza Hotel? BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Athletics

I don't know why I didn't post this up. we have the least flattering of all ratings on our sports programs. there are much better ones:

Sports Illustrated ranked college station the 9th best college sports town.

(austin 4th :-( )

In 2004 Sports Illustrated on Campus ranked a Texas A&M football weekend the third best collegette football experience in the nation.

In 2004 Sports Illustrated on Campus ranked Olsen Field "the best college baseball venue".

In 2004 CBS SportsLine.com ranked Kyle Field the top football stadium in the nation

These should at least go on our sports page. Oldag07 00:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. BlueAg09 (Talk) 00:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Also Agree

Gregzeppelin (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox seal

Halo1eleven suggests we change the seal to this version since the current seal does not use the correct maroon color ([Pantone 505, see reference). He adds that this seal looks more complete and professional as opposed to the current one. In my opinion, this seal looks a bit too colorful; this is just my personal taste though. What do y'all think? BlueAg09 (Talk) 07:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it looks too colorful. It wouldn't be in keeping with the more simplistically-colored seals used by other schools on Wikipedia. --Wordbuilder 15:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I say we go with whichever one is the official one. If both are "official" then we should go with the one that has the most support (Other school seals are colored too: OSU, Yale, California Institute of Technology, etc.). I vote for the color version. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not the only color seal out there. How about this one? --Wordbuilder 02:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No opinion Oldag07 22:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

None of these versions look like the seal at the Academic Building. I think this seal would be appropriate. I haven't found this version in a Google image search. BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Found a better color version from a faculty member ata a&m http://opsweb.tamu.edu/rucker/flash/images/Seal.gif Oldag07 13:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The last one is PERFECT!!! Let's use that one. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The black outline looks a bit bland to me. BlueAg09 (Talk) 18:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The maroon one we used to have is the best one I've seen. These colored ones are ugly. -Texink^[talk] 19:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

possible Future articles

moved to wikiproject talk page

Medal of honor picture

Finally took the time to look up a group medal of honor picture and Cushing. there isn't one, and any picture scanned there is 6 bucks. I will not pay for that. Oldag07 16:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

fair nuff. I coulda sworn there was a plaque of something with the pictures of all 7 together in the Corps Center. Maybe I'll have to go look it up the next time I visit. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Corps center? Never been there. are we allowed to take pictures in museums? Oldag07 20:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. No problems with pictures. Mr. Joe Fenton was the curator of the museum when I was there; wouldn't surprise me if he still was there. Just ask and they'll be happy to show you around and maybe help you with the picts. On top of that, they have an extremely large gun collection there. It's kind neat, but it's in the back (South corner). They might even be giving tours during the new student conferences. Worth checking out. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject

Starting the groundwork for a Texas A&M wikiproject. I can't promise ill be active in it. I am sure future aggie wikipedians will pick it up. I just made a list of wikipedia entries that are a&m related. please add on, and organize. /WPPrep as for the project itself. I think i will start it once Karanacs comes back. Wikipedia:WikiProject Oldag07 01:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think after i make this project, of course i will remain sort of active with this group, but i am not just and Aggie. I have many more interests. I think i am going to help bring the Star Trek page to FA status. Oldag07 01:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed it with the wikiproject council. Put your name down if you are interested in joining Proposal Oldag07

I think i am going to start this earlier then planned. I might get a summer job, and i will therefore not have time to do much of this anymore. It is just going to take forever to link all the A&M sites to the wikiproject. I think we have enough to make a go for it. Oldag07 22:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

DONE

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Texas A&M, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Texas A&M. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! Oldag07 06:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

well, with the first phase, second phase is to add articles /WPPrepOldag07 06:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Comma placement

I've noticed several instances in the article where the comma is placed outside of the quotation mark. This is closer to the British usage, which also calls for the single quotation mark ('). Is there a Wikipedia guideline that addresses what is preferred? If not, I think all of the commas should be inside of the quotation marks. --Wordbuilder 15:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Concur for the most part, but check WP:MoS#Quotations to be sure on usage. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like they should usually be on the outside. So, I'll leave them as is in the article. --Wordbuilder 17:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Wording

trying to do some trimming. in the sentence:

"With strong support from Rice University and the University of Texas at Austin, the Association of American Universities selected Texas A&M for membership in May 2001, based on the depth of the university's research and academic programs."

would the phrase "inducted Texas A&M in May 2001" or "granted Texas A&M membership in May 2001" be better? Oldag07 03:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wording changes

Seriously, you have changed the meaning of the sentences across the board for little reason, that I can see. For example, you stated that the entire senior class enlisted. Enlistment is not the same as getting a commission (many of whom did so). There are more schools with a Corps than just those three (VMI, Citadel, Norwich, etc.), but A&M is one of the three PUBLIC schools. THere are MANY others too that I am simply not willing to list here. I am changing many (if not all), back. This was a featured article before these changes. Why change it now? No trimming needs to be done. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Other examples:

"Many Texas A&M graduates served during World War I." Now this mentiones nothing of their military training at all.

"By 1918, 49% of all graduates of the college were in military service, more than any other school." How about junior colleges/high schools/elementary schools (especially small ones). You cannot make this claim. By making it less specific, you are making a claim that cannot be proven.

"In early September 1918, the entire senior class enlisted, with plans to..." BIG difference between enlistment and commissions.

These sentences no longer even make sense:

"In the late 1880s, many Texas residents saw no need for two colleges in Texas wanted to close Texas A.M.C."

"Research funding during the 2004 year totaled more than $520.9 million, ranking Texas A&M among the top 20 American research institutes, with funds increased over than $100 million from 1994 to 2004."

"...and has a strong research collaborations with the National Natural Science Foundation..."

"With seven mirrors with a diameter..." you need to specify that it is EACH mirror's diameter to eliminate the ambiguity.

In short, PLEASE justify these changes on this page. You "minor" changes aren't minor. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

trimming must be done. this page is ~2000 bytes more than it was after it's FA nomination. it is growing even bigger Oldag07 13:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't necessarily have to remove content because we add more. To keep our FA status we just need to make sure that additions are of high quality and follow the rules. There is no cut-off length where you get in trouble, so I think we are fine. Karanacs 13:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

campus section rewrite

I wasn't really in a compromising mood yesterday, and i am sorry. as for my quick changes that everyone has to clean up, sorry again. take a look at a this proposal for the campus section:

first off, the two citations really don't mention what you are saying in the paragraph. A news archive about transportation and something on vision 2020. next, why is the main campus, the historical center of campus in less detail compared to west campus. for example mentioning the business school without mentioning the engineering department's location is absurd.

Old paragraph.

A Union Pacific Railroad operated railroad track divides the campus. Main Campus, east of the tracks, includes academic buildings, the Memorial Student Center, Kyle Field, and dormitories. West Campus, west of the tracks, includes most of the sports facilities, the business school, agricultural programs, the veterinary college, the George Bush Presidential Library and the medical school. Research Park, the area of West Campus along Kimbrough Boulevard, includes many research facilities.

proposed new paragraph using one source, the campusmap project at Texas A&M.

A Union Pacific Railroad operated railroad track divides the campus into two parts, main and west campus. Main Campus includes dormitories, administrative buildings, and is the center of student activities. Main campus holds most of the academic buildings of engineering, liberal arts, education, natural sciences, and architecture. Historical buildings on main campus include the Memorial Student Center, Kyle Field, the YMCA building, the academic building, and the administration building. West campus, includes the sports facilities, the business school, agricultural programs, the veterinary college, the George Bush Presidential Library and parts of the Texas A&M Health Science Center. Research Park, the area of West Campus along Kimbrough Boulevard, includes many research facilities.

"Texas A&M Campus Map Project" (HTML/Java?). Google Maps and Texas A&M University. 2007-6-30. Retrieved 2007-6-30. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)

• not sure how to site an A&M website with google maps in the middle of it?

• because paragraph is becoming too long, removed mention of the location of west campus and main campus in proportion to the realroad

• center for student activities, koldus is where student activities is housed, organizations meet in all koldus, rudder, and the msc, might need to source

• not sure if i should mention the alumni association.

• they have recently built the School of Rural Public Health a little over a year ago deep on west campus. that is part of the health science center. but not directly tied to the med school. i broadened that sentence

• not sure how to say liberal arts but not political science (ps being in the bush school on west campus). . .

• the college of science is mostly on main campus. however, biochemistry/physics and entomology are not part of that school and are on west campus. not sure how to say that.

• we could also cut facts off west campus and keep most of the old paragraphs. still http://www.campusmaps.tamu.edu is a lot better than the old sources. . ...

Oldag07 14:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Another proposal

A Union Pacific Railroad operated railroad track divides the campus into two parts, main and west campus. Main Campus includes buildings for the colleges of engineering, architecture, geosciences, science, education and liberal arts. Main campus also holds dormatories along with support facilities. Notable buildings on main campus include Kyle Field, the Academic Building, the Memorial Student Center, the Administration Building, Rudder Tower, Albritton Bell Tower, and the Bonfire Memorial. West Campus includes most of the sports facilities, the business school, agricultural programs, the veterinary college, the George Bush Presidential Library and the medical school. The Research Park part of West Campus includes many research facilities.

Only cut out the location of research park. did not describe the location of anything else, why explain where research park is. and i also give a better reference, google maps as shown on the campus of texas A&M page.

i will give this one more night. if no one objects, i am assuming that i have a conscious and, i will replace the new text with the old. Oldag07 22:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't be hasty -- I'm not online much on the weekends, which is why I haven't responded yet. I wrote this paragraph originally, and I couldn't cite it all to one source because not all of the information is in the campus maps project. For example, it doesn't mention that it is a Union Pacific RR, and it never uses the names Main Campus, West Campus, and Research Park. I also think it is important to describe the locations of the pieces of campus. Overall, I really disagree with you that the sections need to be trimmed much, as they passed FA review in this format, and I worry that if they get too short we will be missing valuable information -- the very detail that makes the facts interesting. But, if you really want to make a change, I'd recommend something like the following. Karanacs 01:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Karanacs draft

The campus is bisected by a railroad track operated by Union Pacific. The area east of the tracks, known as Main Campus, includes buildings for the colleges of engineering, architecture, geosciences, science, education and liberal arts. All dormitories, as well as the main dining centers and many campus support facilities, are also located on Main Campus. Notable buildings on Main Campus include Kyle Field, the Academic Building, the Memorial Student Center, the Administration Building, Rudder Tower, Albritton Bell Tower, and the Bonfire Memorial. To the west of the railroad tracks lies West Campus, which includes most of the sports facilities, the business school, agricultural programs, the veterinary college, the George Bush Presidential Library and the medical school. Research Park, the area of West Campus along Kimbrough Boulevard, includes many research facilities.

Debate on cuts has moved to the wikiproject talk page. . . . Oldag07 02:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

References

more research

Doing research on for the SL page, i have also stumbled across the fact that A&M has a 1 billion dollar physical plant. http://www.tamu.edu/admissions/catalogs/07-08_UG_Catalog/gen_info/history_development/history.htm I have seen that fact in several publications. if it doesn't go on this page, the physical plant definitely needs to go on the campus page. they are unsung heroes at a&m. Oldag07 02:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Missing citation

Look at #20. It points to a reference named "homeland" that does not exist in the article. —Wordbuilder 20:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I fixed this and another citation in the same section that had its formatting messed up. This had been correct at some point -- I'm not sure when it was removed. Karanacs 16:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Link to University System

"Texas A&M" redirects here. For other system schools, see Texas A&M University System.

Why I believe we should have a link like the one at the top of this thread

1. I understand that no other school within the university system has the name "Texas A&M University", but we have many redirects that are simply "Texas A&M" linking to this page. I was wrong on this point http://tamusystem.tamu.edu/Oldag07 18:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
2. While in Texas it might be obvious that we are mentioning the campus in college station, an outsider from another state, probably one who has no clue about college sports, or those outside the country might not know the difference.
3. It provides a more NPOV
4. It is respectful to the other schools within the system.
5. We can be more like our fellow T-sip friends. Wait, i take that back, we shouldn't put a link to the university system.  :-)

Vote? Oldag07 22:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. This is the most prominent school in the system and generally referred to as "Texas A&M" in the media. So, even-out-of staters would likely expect that search to land them here rather than at Texas A&M University System. →Wordbuilder 13:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Support Go for it -- this should have probably been there all along. Karanacs 15:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Support Passed. . . Oldag07 18:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Does this belong

When ESPN College Gameday aired in front of Kyle field on November 4, 2007, sports analyst Kirk Herbstreit states his opinion that the A&M student section is the best in America. http://www.theeagle.com/stories/110506/am_20061105004.php

I guess you could call it boosterism. But it is true. Oldag07 02:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that could be incorporated into the Texas A&M Aggies page -- it shouldn't be on the main university page. Karanacs 13:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Too POV?

This is removed from the main page for now. We can add it back in if there is consensus. I was afraid it was too POV, and didn't think it belong on the main page. It's uncited, so I don't know whether the statistics are even accurate.

"Critics say that campus is not welcoming to minorities, especially blacks. Detractors point out that the student body is only 2.87% black when the black population of the surrounding community, College Station, is 5.45% black and the State of Texas has a 12% black population.

When school athletes are removed from the statistics, only 1.14% of the student body is black. Supporters point out that Texas A&M does not use race or ethnicity as a factor in admission. Critics argue that it is an intolerant culture rather than an institutional policy that makes Texas A&M unattractive to blacks. " Karanacs 15:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs. I reverted, though you couldn't tell from my edit summary since I hit the Enter key when I was trying for Shift. Here's what I'm uncomfortable with: 1) No citation; 2) "Critics say..." If it was cited and read something to the effect of "A 2006 study revealed that..." or "In 2006, [reputable magazine] ranked the university as third on its list of schools that are unwelcoming to minorities...", then it would be different.

On a seperate issue, does anyone get errors when trying to save edits to the article's page? I do at least 75% of the time and this is the only page I have trouble with. →Wordbuilder 15:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You hit the undo button right as I was trying - thanks! I get errors a lot , but not just with this page. I think the servers are getting cranky.Karanacs 15:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I notice bad edits don't live long here. Maybe the errors occur on the longer pages. I think Wikipedia is outgrowing itself. I imagine there will be expansion to catch up, though. →Wordbuilder 15:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Diversity is so relative. I remember reading a quote from a girl from Prairie View A&M saying that they don't have problems with diversity because 90 percent of their campus was black. .. . Oldag07 04:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Good delete. I'd love to see their source. It wouldn't surprise me if it came from the "Touchstone"... — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Washington Monthly

I think a top rating in the Washington Monthly deserves to me in the introduction. Oldag07 01:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but it is more like a current event than something that will always be true about A&M. If it were something that would remain constant (i.e. a national championship or a notable event), then yeah. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Recognition section of the history page maybeOldag07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldag07 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Computer Simulation Band

If the Computer Simulation statement is questionable on the band page, than is it not necessary on this page. this page probably could use a big delete like that. Oldag07 10:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Vote? Oldag07 21:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's wait and see what pans out. As it is right now, there is not yet a consensus, but I'll go with whatever happens to be the phrasing there. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

New question

The reference to the student body representing all 254 counties in Texas is unsourced. Given that many Texas counties have less than a thousand people, this is statistically improbable, if not impossible. There is no such reference on the A&M home page. If anyone has a valid source for this comment, it should be added. Otherwise this language should be removed.RyanGentry 04:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)RyanGentry

(moved to new section for clarity by — BQZip01 — ^talk)

I am not saying that this one is right and it doesn't appear to be supported by the given sources (I'm actively working on finding a source), but since many of the more sparsely populated counties are mostly agrarian, it is reasonable that they might want to go to a school which specializes in agriculture. As for your grasp of statistics, I'd like to hear your rationale as to why (despite the facts) it is "statistically impossible." — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Statistically impossible may be a little overboard. However, given that Loving County has an estimated population of 60 people with nearly 25% of them over 65, it seems extremely unlikely that one of the 15 or so people of college age is at this school (which is more than six hours away). The same analysis can be made for King County (pop. 356), Kenedy County (pop. 414), etc... I think that it is very unlikely any of these low population counties are represented, and even more unlikely that they are all represented. If you select a random person from Texas the chance that they are both from Loving county and attending Texas A&M University is 0.00000000718 or more than 100 million to one. Granted this is not the most statistically appropriate analysis, it gives you a sense of how unlikely it is. RyanGentry 19:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)RyanGentry

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. You logic is that you are picking from everyone in Texas rather than from all the students at Texas A&M. That likelihood is more like one in 46,000 for at least one. That said, I think that stat may have been pulled from thing air (I certainly didn't write it). I support its deletion as it doesn't have a source (IMHO, a "fact" tag seems inappropriate for an FA; either it is sourced or it is gone). For now, just comment it out with a note as to why it was removed. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Might be a bad source, but the Texas top ten percent rule doesn't make it implausible that students can come from any county in the state. Oldag07 12:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Loving County has no schools.  :-) Although, I will concede that it is possible that students that attended high school in another county may be "from" Loving County. RyanGentry 02:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Missing Mention Of Texas A&M - Commerce Campus

The article currently only mentions two branch campuses of Texas A&M, Galveston and Qatar. However, there is a third. In 1996, Texas A&M University at Commerce joined the Texas A&M University System. The Texas A&M Commerce branch in turn has satellite teaching facilities in Dallas (Universities Center) and Corsicana (Navarro College Partnership). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.59.122.107 (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Texas A&M-Commerce is not a branch campus; it is just a member of the Texas A&M system. See Texas_A&M_University_System#Universities for clarification. BlueAg09 (Talk) 05:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

To piggyback on what BlueAg09 said, it is a separate school that falls under the Texas A&M University System. The Qatar and Galveston campuses are actually extensions of the main campus (they actually log in to the A&M College Station computer system to register for classes). If you have any additional questions, please let us know. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Created Redirects for Texas A&M System Schools. the term "Texas A&M University at Commerce" redirects to Texas A&M University-Commerce. I also did that for San Antonio, Kingsville, Texarkana, and Corpus Christi. Oldag07 02:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

References

Brand Guide

This just came out from Texas A&M. [1] The A&M brand guide. I am not sure how we want to do it, they have the logo just like we have ours, but then they also have the colored logo too. I am not sure if we want to use any more of the stuff on the branding site for this page Oldag07 03:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I just uploaded those logos. Good thing I have a netID ;) I don't find the seal too aesthetically pleasing though. Oh well. BlueAg09 (Talk) 04:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

New President

According to press releases that came out today (Eagle write up), Elsa Murano is now the sole finalist for the new president, which would make her both the first woman and first minority president of A&M. Not sure if it should go in the article yet, or if it has to wait until it is final. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Blueag just started a new article on her. Elsa Murano. we probably should wait until it is final though to post it upOldag07 (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool beans :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's official. Dr. Murano became president today, 3 January 2008. (Murano Becomes 23rd President) --Jerseycube (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed comments & citation

As a featured article, the comments have been added at the request of other editors in regards to its featured article status. Please do not remove those...though obviously the comments about stuff in the past can go.

Furthermore, the citation provided DOES show information about the Baylor vs. A&M rivalry (do a word search for Baylor).

I admire your enthusiasm and we could use it and your knowledge on Wikipedia:WikiProject Texas A&M. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Are those comments required to be in the article by Wikipedia? If not, they really seem to belong on the talk page, not in the article text with the image justifications needing to be on the images, not the article either. I checked that first source, it only showed a Baylor vs A&M game and did not seem to meet any requirement for being a neutral source. Since the second source already gave adequate evidence, no reason to be have it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Those comments are not "required by Wikipedia", but were requested by other Wikipedia editors for clarification and to prevent the changing of the associated numbers (people were changing 280,000 to 320,000 and vice versa because they didn't understand the difference between the two. The comments are not uncommon on Wikipedia or Featured Articles and provides rationale to prevent unnecessary edits.

As for the Baylor game, there is nothing wrong with having more than one source. User:Johntex, an admin from that overglorified junior college in Austin that has lost two in a row to the Aggies, is part of a group of people that help check references. He has stated, and I agree, that it is preferable to have extra references (especially web references) since websites change their systems all the time and links go bad. Furthermore, this doesn't mention one game, but mentions the annual game between the schools and refers to it as "the Battle on the Brazos." As such, it is a perfectly acceptable link.

From the FA review: "As a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check, I'd be against taking out any references. Double references are to be applauded, not condemmed. One never knows when a given source will be challended as unreliable or biases, when a web link will go dead, or when a source book goes out of print. We should encourage (but not require) multiple references to confirm each point given. If we strive for that, every piece of press on Wikipedia will applaud us for making it very easy for the reader to confirm our facts. It also gives the reader that many more references where they can go to learn more about the topic. Johntex\^talk 16:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)"

Hope that makes the reasoning a little more clear. BTW, I fixed the link for Wikipedia:WikiProject Texas A&M... I forgot a capital P... — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No prob. That makes sense (on the numbers). Not sure why the ones on the images were needed, but if consensus is they are helpful, all good :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The comments on the images were in response to a spat of editors in the GA review who believed that fair use images (even if they were simply pictures of a statue in the background) required an explanation in comments in the article, the image page, etc. Their motives were to prevent Wikipedia from getting sued from using a copyrighted image. While I admire their efforts, I'm pretty sure that this was simply overkill. However, it didn't hurt the article in any major way, so I went ahead and added it. Just picking my battles. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah...an odd requirement, but guess if it was felt to be necessary. Never been required in any of the TV/Film articles I've worked in, where you'd think it would be a bigger issue, but ah well. :) Sorry to step on toes, just thought they'd been forgotten from some old style fair use requirement or something :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No toes stepped on. Great discussion with an amicable person. This is nice compared to previous discussions: 1 2 3. My advice: Never get an article featured on the main page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism lock

What ever happened to the vandalism lock that was on this page earlier? Oldag07 (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It was removed a few days ago. Is a lock like that ever intended to be permanent for an article? →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like an admin locked it a while back and forgot to unlock it until recently. BlueAg09 (Talk) 20:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

US News & World Report Ranking / Tier 1?

I see that the article mentions that A&M is ranked by US News & World Report, but I don't see it mentioned that its ranking qualifies the school as a "Tier 1" university, which is the highest level -- a real accomplishment, IMHO, since some major universities are listed as "Tier 2," "Tier 3" or lower.

Should it be mentioned that A&M is Tier 1 (assuming the magazine still uses this terminology)? --Skb8721 (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Seal

That was the first I have heard of not having a seal used for a university page. t.u. and Oklahoma State at a quick glance do have seals Oldag07 (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Almost all universities expressly forbid the use of their seals on anything other than official documents. Some, like State University of New York at Binghamton have emailed to Wikipedia to complain. Others are likely to follow suit if we do not do a better job of respecting their policies. Most are fine with logo use, including A&M. But considering A&M smacks down its own departments for inappropriate use of the seal, and the whole UT suing thing, it is likely they would do the same to Wikipedia if efforts are not made to address the issue.

Also, per the University MOS, all of the university article's should be using logos, not seals. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

They crack down on professors using it to espouse personal views as if they came from the University. This is a fair use image in this instance and meets all WP criteria (even if A&M challenges its use) and can be used. That some schools have challenged it seems to be a far cry from policy. Furthermore, the ATM logo is an athletic logo, not specifically the school as a whole. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A&M states very clearly "The Texas A&M seal is limited to official university documents such as invitations from the President's Office and graduation diplomas." Using it here is highly inappropriate and does NOT meet fair use when its already been forbidden. They do not just crack down on professors using it to "espouse personal views" but have and will deal with anyone who violates that. The ATM logo on the article now is the one officially sanction by the university as its school logo, not just for athletics. We could also use the primary mark, which has the logo and the school name in white on a maroon background and is allowed for use here. I can download it and upload it here, if that one is desirable. However, we can not and should not use the seal. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Where did you find this information? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The A&M branding page guide where the seal was taken from [2]. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be an internal guide as to A&M's use. As stated in another page, this memo doesn't apply to wikipedia and this image falls squarely under fair use (again, this is an academic discussion, not what should or shouldn't be done). As for Wikiproject Universities, their MOS, states specifically "The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus..." Seeing as it is not yet policy or a guideline. You'll note I didn't remove the logo and replace it with the seal. That's because it wasn't necessary and because nothing substantive really changed in the article, only a preference for one image over another. While I think the seal looks better, that is my opinion. Thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually like the ATM logo better. It is more associated with the school than the seal, and when someone surfs to the page they are much more likely to recognize the logo. Karanacs (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree wtih AnmaFinotera. This matter came up some time back regarding the Texas Tech University article. At that time, I supported using the Official Seal but have since reconsidered. The universities determine guidelines on how they want the schools represented to the public. Regardless of how we feel or what we think looks best, they own the images and what they set as policy in this matter should be respected. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Can vs. should are two different arguments. I don't oppose the current form, but we can use the seal. That is all. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of stuff you "can" do, that doesn't make it stuff we should. We can run around and copy/paste content from books and websites and stuff...doesn't make it a good idea. I've removed the seal from the other two A&M pages it was on and will replace them with the proper logos (which is better anyway, since while they are part of the system, they do have their own identities). AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the distinction. I am not talking about what we should do, only what we can do legally. Replacing those seals with the institutionally identifiable logos sounds liek a great idea. (BQZip01) 131.44.121.252 (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well then why are you spending so much time belaboring a point that, as you've said, is a complete nonissue? That strikes me as being a gigantic waste of time. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Because you seem to be misconstruing what I type. I was simply trying to clarify my points. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wind Symphony

Being a recent Aggie graduate, and being one of the editors that got this page to FA status, I was the one who deleted the wind symphony. The singing cadets were put on this page because they:

• Are the second oldest organization on campus
• conduct themselves in very unique ways compared to most choirs.

The page itself was deemed too long, so we kept all but the most organizations out.

I am willing to compromise though. We can have a paragraph dedicated to the arts in the activity section. I feel wind symphony would be in par with MSC OPAS, the hullabaloo band, tamu orchestra, the century singers. If we could put them all in one concise "Arts" paragraph it would be an appropriate addition. Moreover, with the logic i have with the cadets the Aggie Wranglers should be mentioned on this page too. Oldag07 (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding to the singing cadets argument for notability on this page:

http://bush.tamu.edu/news/stories/162/

http://millercenter.org/scripps/digitalarchive/speeches/spe_1989_0512_bush?print

Oldag07 (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Rivalry

I don't know if this statement belongs:

"The Texas Tech Red Raiders also consider A&M a rival."

First, reference 139 does not make any mention of Texas Tech throughought. The second reference, 140, calls the matchup an "instate rivalry". However "instate rivalry" means exactly that and would include Baylor, U of H, etc. While the statement itself may be true, it seems it belongs on the Texas Tech page as opposed to the TAMU page. After all, its very wording expresses an opinion held by the Texas Tech, not A&M. Goatchze (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this is the reference used for the same claim in the Texas Tech Red Raiders article. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Added ref plus some others. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Template

I like this template that i have found. add your name to this if you would like {{Maintained}} Oldag07 (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Medal of Honor vs Specimen Medal

Re: Medal of Honor vs. specimen medal or locally produced replicas - I am the person responsible for the "vandalism" of changing the statements saying that the seven medals on display in Texas A&M's Memorial Student Center are NOT the recipient's Medals of Honor. They are "specimen medals." I have been told to quit changing the wikipedia pages. In search of historical accuracy, I will NOT stand down. I am sorry that the university has LIED to all of the students, parents, faculty, and indeed, the world for all this time, but they have now corrected their own web pages:

http://aggietraditions.tamu.edu/msc.shtml http://www.msc.tamu.edu/facilities/memorial.html http://www.msc.tamu.edu/facilities/galleries.html

I request that all wikipedia editors of these and associated pages to check the sources above before ripping into me once again.

I realize that I am bucking tradition saying that these are not the medals, but I am telling the truth, as is Texas A&M, finally. I know where my uncle's Medal of Honor was all these years - in the possession of my family. It wasn't until this past April 2008 that my family donated it to the Sam Houston Sanders Corps of Cadets Center. It is currently being displayed there. A project is underway to find the families and medals of all seven of the Medal of Honor recipients. More information can be found here: www.rajordan.com/pete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.189.109 (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is that if you have sources to back up your claims (as you have linked here in the talk page), then make the appropriate edits in to the article, but be sure to cite your claims in the article. If you make changes without citing your sources, it will likely be reverted. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous editor making uncited changes without being bothered to use the edit summary. Can you really blame folks for thinking maybe you were either making ill-advised changes or vandalizing? I did look into the matter between your last change and your post now. I understand what you're saying. The medals displayed are only representations of those actually awarded. →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

More specifically, these are effectively actual medals that were never awarded. They were made from the same materials and same manner as those actually awarded. They are REAL medals, but not those awarded to any particular person. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be an anonymous editor making uncited changes. I simply do not live and breath wiki. Now that someone understands that they are specimen medals will someone please make the changes and cite sources for me? As for the statement. "They are REAL medals, but not those awarded to any particular person." Doesn't that, logically, lead to the fact that they are not the Medals of Honor that belong THESE men? They are NOT the REAL medals as per Texas A&M web pages cited above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.189.109 (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's okay not to "live and breath wiki". It's also okay to edit without creating an account. However, there are basic rules. One is the need to cite reliable sources. Another is the need to use the edit summary box. It is right there on the page. You should have taken a few seconds to type in an explanation of why you were making the changes. This would have helped other editors understand what you were trying to say. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur they aren't the medals awarded to the stated individuals, but my point is that they are actual medals, not fakes (which are illegal by the way). Your terminology is completely accurate. I was simply trying to explain what the medals displayed actually are. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What part of "specimen medals" is real? This is A&M's verbiage, not mine; check the sources which are A&M's own pages. I would have preferred the phrase "locally produced replicas" which is what I was told first. This is THE highest honor that the United States government awards. Don't you think that the students, parents, faculty, public, indeed, the world, should know the truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.189.109 (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC) I can't help but think that people are fighting this truth because they have to concede that A&M lied about the medals all these years. Hard to face, huh? From the seat of higher learning that promotes truth, honor, etc., etc. Let it go. The university has. Oh, and as it sits right now, it says, "Horace S. Carswell's Medal of Honor; Replicas of all seven Medals of Honor ...." So which is it? His Medal of Honor? or a fake? Someone is giving the world conflicting information. Not my doing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.189.109 (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

[Indent to specifically address a concern]

"So which is it? His Medal of Honor? or a fake?" Neither. It is not one of those awarded to the seven Aggie recipients. It is not a "fake" (as in a forgery). It is a real Medal of Honor that has not been awarded to anyone in particular. This is permitted, as long as it was an authorized manufacturer of the medal and no one is falsely claiming to be a recipient. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree the wording the caption was not clear. I've reworded it and hopefully, it will be acceptable to all. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Please keep in mind WP:CIVIL & WP:AGF.
2. Please sign your posts.
3. No one here is "fighting the truth". I'm not saying A&M lied about it, but they probably had erroneous information (though someone in the past likely lied to them as well). There is a vast difference between intentionally misleading people and making a mistake. You are assuming I have a motive beyond what is discussed here. I certainly think "the students, parents, faculty, public, indeed, the world, should know the truth". No one is trying to cover it up; not here, not at A&M. Quite frankly, I think that Wikipedia has clearly been an engine of change and the truth has come out thanks to our discussions.
4. To put this in context (and let's remember this is a hypothetical), I have received medals from the U.S. Air Force. If someone placed a plaque in the MSC with my picture, purchased such a medal from uniform & clothing sales on base, and then displayed it by my name, it would be perfectly accurate to call it "my medal", even though it wasn't the one specifically awarded to me. On my various uniforms, I have multiple ribbons I have purchased, none of which are the one I was awarded directly. However, all are the medals I received. NONE of the plaques in the MSC should state "this is the medal given to XXX/XXX's family" or "this is XXX's medal". I agree 100%, but to state that "this is the medal given to XXX" is still accurate. The problem lies in the inaccuracy/ambiguity of pronouns and the English language. No deception is intended, but could be misleading. "this is the medal" is intended to mean "this is the specific kind of medal of the U.S." (as opposed to a Silver Star or Distinguished Service Cross) and "given to XXX" means it was awarded to an individual through an official act of the U.S. government.
5. I'm not trying to parse words here, only trying to show there is more than one interpretation of a statement. You are absolutely right to state this was not the medal issued to your uncle. A&M is right to state that these men received such an honor. Both statements are accurate that the medals portrayed are the kinds of medals given to these men. Your uncle is one of America's heroes and we are trying to appropriately convey his actions and bravery. If a mistake was made, it was an honest one on the part of those involved. Please try to assume good faith on the part of other editors; no one here is trying to cover up anything. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)