Talk:Texas A&M University

Congrats to the custodians of this article. Your rapid response has been wonderful. This article has the scope and breadth to possibly be a featured article some day. Please consider taking it to peer review to seek comment and prepare it for FA status. Good job!--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

WHOOOOOOOPPPPP!!!!! Oldag07 01:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

??? "This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. "Oldag07 02:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just requested it on the texas site. going to bed. man, of all things, wikipedia is destracting me from my studies.Oldag07 02:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)BlueAg09 (Talk) 02:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Whoop and a half. Who's up for featured article status? Anyone else think BluAg09 will be surprised? — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

give me until sunday. i have taken a lot of random pictures around campus, the msc, a better rec center picture, kyle field, etc. i am going on my own elephant walk around campus, and i guess, ill take even more pictures. btw, is this a good time to archive our talk page?Oldag07 13:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

WHOOP! Where is BluAg09?--he needs to celebrate too. So what do we need to do to make this a Featured Article? I'd love to get there before texas ;) Karanacs 13:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

i am a real old ag now. sad day. . . . . Oldag07 14:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Congrats everyone! Glad to see the article has passed GA nomination. I've actually been checking the nomination page ever since to see if it has. I was thrilled when I saw this topic here. You guys are no doubt true Aggies!BlueAg09 (Talk) 23:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Glad to see you back. How were exams? OldAg, congrats...but IMHO, you'll never be an "old" ag to me :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well folks, who's up to working towards featured article status? I'm in. I think the first step is to review the article and figure out in which areas we're lacking and then work on them. If no one starts a list of things to check in the next few days, I'll start it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm up for it. I think we should follow the guidelines outlined here: User:AndyZ/Suggestions.BlueAg09 (Talk) 02:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. I started a subpage so as to not clutter up the main talk page with the massive number of comments/edits that are sure to come. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's amazing how far this article has come since this past December. It was only another article, but now we have several Aggies working constantly improving and expanding A&M related articles. Congratulations!! I believe as part of this last push for Featured Article status that we should also not forget that all other A&M related articles should be improved in conjunction with the main article. Also, for future consideration, a plan should be in place for the time when this article does become featured so that we can hopefully avoid vandalism; including constructing a list of all images, pages, and templates that are included that must be locked from editing. Also, establish a team to monitor all A&M related articles for continual vandalism. However, that is just my two cents. -- Hut101 23:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Locking items is not what Wikipedia is about. I monitor a lot A&M articles daily as do many other editors. We just need to maintain the vigilance. I say we start with making this a featured article first (to gain experience as to what to look for) and then branch out accordingly. Hut, please come and join us in the tweaking of the article. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you add to the pop culture segment, make sure it isn't one of these (already removed during a peer review). — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Three Texas A&M students have advanced to at least semifinalist status in the Jeopardy! College Championship tournament. One of the students won the tournament with $51,300 in 2002. Students from the National Association of Home Builders chapter at Texas A&M appeared on the January 29, 2006, episode of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.^[1] The final score of the 1955 Texas A&M vs. Rice football game is overheard during a radio broadcast in Back to the Future Part II. The final score was announced as 20-10 in the movie; the actual final score was 20-12.^[2] A&M football is also briefly mentioned in the 1982 musical The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas, as the Aggie football team visits the Chicken Ranch brothel after a victory. Fictional character Nick Stokes in the television series CSI: Crime Scene Investigation is a graduate of Texas A&M University,^[3] where he received a degree in criminal justice.^[4] However, criminal justice is not one of the degree programs currently offered by the university.^[5] In the television series Over There, character Bo Rider is given a partial scholarship to Texas A&M, but is unable to pay other costs and enlists in the Army to take advantage of the G.I. Bill.^[6] Texas A&M apparel has been worn by various musical artists, including Snoop Dogg in his appearance in the music video "Pop Lockin' II" created by the hip hop group West Coast Bad Boyz,^[7] and Brad Nowell, former lead singer of the band Sublime in the "What I Got" music video.^[8] On the Ramones Rocket to Russia album cover, Dee Dee Ramone is seen wearing a Texas Aggies shirt with Ol' Sarge on it.^[9] In the episode of Northern Exposure "Dinner at 7:30," Maggie O'Connell, played by Janine Turner wears a sweatshirt with the traditional block ATM logo on the chest. In Act I, Episode 1, Season 1 of This American Life, Texas A&M researchers are asked to clone a Brahman bull.

Is there a reason why the citations for the first paragraph of the history section were changed from the Handbook of Texas? The one citation of the handbook covered the information in the entire paragraph. That makes for a little easier reading of the paragraph (no footnotes necessary at the end of each sentence), and it also provides a neutral source (not directly from Texas A&M). I'd like to change the citations back, but I'll wait for comments before I do. Thanks. Karanacs 14:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

• I realized there may be some confusion about citations. I've written a lot of research papers, and it is not necessary to put a citation after every sentence (unless it contains a quotation). A cite at the end of a paragraph is fine as long as that citation covers all the info in the paragraph, or if several sentences contain info from one citation, the citation would be placed where that info ends. Karanacs 15:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to remove the headings in the Notable Buildings section and leave it just as bolded building names. The TOC is already pretty long, and this makes it longer. Also, there is only one small paragraph under each building, which seems too short for an actual heading. Thoughts? Karanacs 18:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree.BlueAg09 (Talk) 23:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I second that vote. Graduation was very bittersweet. Got my new laptop. not sure how long it will take me to upload pictures, but i hope to load them up tomorrow. I got ~300 pictures on my 5.0 megapixel camera. I think i can get about 30-40 good ones out of that list. Took a lot of pictures of the same things. well then good luck. see ya.

Gotta disagree. Please see the FA subpage. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad you found the MOS listing on that -- thanks for clearing the matter up. Karanacs 14:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Part 1: I uploaded some of the pictures I have taken of campus in the last few days. This touchpad is annoying, but the computer is great. Ill try to upload more later today. Uploaded in a rush. Spelling is way off on some of the things. Please edit. and of course, start putting them on their approprate pages http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Texas_A%26M_University Oldag07 16:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Part 2: Uploaded the rest of my stuff. please edit and change to make sure everything is good. most of this pictures need to go on the subpages. I am not a great writer. I guess that is my contribution to this project, and my graduation gift to Texas A&M. Ill get to it, but i am done for today. Gig em!Oldag07 21:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Added my pictures to the library page. Also added a Cyclotron image to the research page. Oldag07 02:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Pictures added to Education, Business, Architecture, and Reed Arena. More can be added to other pages still.

I purpose changing "Traditions" to "A&M Culture", or the like, with two sub-sections, "Traditions", and "Pop Culture". Therefore we can place emphasis on Aggie related traditions as we've done, and have a separate section relating to the effects of A&M culture outside of the student body. Though this is basically how the section is currently constructed, hopefully we would be able to expand once again the pop culture section. -- Hut101 23:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

but a&m is known for its traditions. Oldag07 02:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yyyyyyyyyeaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh. I'm gonna have to...sorta...disagree with you on that one...yeah. In general, the pop culture segments invariably turn to simple trivia where the subject is included anywhere. While it is well-intentioned, it quickly becomes a running, rambling list. Unless A&M plays a major role (like the subject, 10% (or 3-5 minutes) of running time), it's pointless. It's going to become useless quickly. In addition, A&M is known for its traditions, not its culture (hmm...is that necessarily a good thing?) — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

if we are going to mention culture, we have got to mention the fact that A&M is really conservative (at least for academia) Moreover, on the traditions page, I am not exactly sure how to write about putting pennies on sully. Oldag07 19:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I guess it's left to individual definition. -- Hut101 20:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I removed some of the subsections in the ToC since a peer reviewer noted that it was too long. What does everyone else think? I removed the subsections under History and Campus.BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Where is this review? — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Here. BlueAg09 (Talk) 22:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is exactly the kind of feedback we need to fix the article, but I disagree. Thanks, but it states, "consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages." It doesn't say to rewrite them with false headings or improper subheadings. While I appreciate the feedback, it was automated, not a human looking at the article and saying, "hmm...I don't see how they could do it any other way." I say we consolidate them all into paragraphs without headings; at the beginning of each we should put each building in italics. We could also go back to a list. Lists aren't prohibitted in wikipedia, just discouraged. Thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I made the TOC show only the first two levels. This way we can keep in the headings of the individual buildings to best fit the MOS, but we don't have to worry about the TOC getting too much longer.Karanacs 14:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

VERY NICE!!! GREAT CORRECTION!!! CAPS LOCK IS STUCK!!! DON'T READ TOO MUCH into capitalized...oh, I guess it is fixed...nice edits — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I had some ideas in my head, but i don't have much time to write up a full thing. I have lived on campus all 4 years of my school career as a non reg. honestly, dorm pride has taken a plunge in recent years. in 2003, i felt some hostility between northside and southside. not so much in 2007. everyone seems more interested in their own business, instead of getting to know their neighbors. anyways, I won't have internet access for about a week, but id figure id jot down very quickly some ideas for this section before i leave tomorrow. and yes, i haven't found any references yet either.

Residents can be divided into two catagories, corps members and, and non regs, (non military members). (never was in the corps, please edit) Corps members are required, with some exceptions, to stay on campus for the duriation of their membership in the corps. They begin there days at six o clock in the morning with a morning formation. Unlike traditional ROTC programs, corps members go to classes in uniforms every day. The corps provides many activities to keep their members busy. They have physical training sessions, mandatory study sessions, and corps games to accomplish every day. While efforts by the administration have been successful at minimizing the hazing going on in the corps, it still remains a problem on campus.

Non reg housing is more conventional. Dorms, called halls, have a very active RHA association representing them. The halls are build in a variety of styles, built at various times reflecting a wide variety in the styles of the dorms. Walton Hall, a ramp style dorm was built before world war two. External air conditioning was only added to that dorm as of 2002. A modular hall, was built in 1990. Halls tend to be smaller in population but larger in number compared to other schools in the area such as the University of Texas. The largest dorm, Mosher can a little over 600 people, while the average hall holds only 200. None of these dorms have elevators. A&M halls do not have their own dining facitities, but are centered around eating areas such as Sbisa Dining Hall.

Before the bonfire collapse, individual dorms formed the basis of the work groups that worked together on the bonfire. Dorm traditions such as the phrase "Walton Loads" are based on bonfire. As of recently there has been a trend integrate single sex dorms into coed dorms. Most coed dorms tend to have different gender floors, however Hobby Hall, as of spring 2006 has integrated these floors, and more coed dorms are expected to follow suit. The university has been experimenting with Leadership Living Learning Community dorms to foster greater academic success among residents.

There has been no construction of new dorms since 1990. Many dorms, such as Cain hall, and Hotard have been converted into office buildings. New halls have been planned, but nothing has been built yet.

Hate to be the killjoy here, but I think this article is starting to get a bit out of hand. Long, high-quality sections such as "Notable Buildings" and "History" should be articles of their own with no more than one or two paragraphs in this main article designed to entice the reader to open the separate articles for detailed information. Adding this section about reslife would make an already bulky article even more so. I'm also not convinced that a detailed description of residential life is even notable. It might be relevant on a Texas A&M wiki (hint, hint), but I just don't see it as being particularly notable to a general knowledge encyclopedia like Wikipedia.

I think the reslife section should be limited to easily referenced facts such as number and types of dorms, number of students living on campus, etc. etc. If there is more information regarding dorm culture, make a brief mention of it in the main Texas A&M artickle, then write a separate article for the dorm culture info. Also, prepare convincing arguments to explain why it's notable in case challenged.

You guys are doing a great job, tho. Keep it up! --Ntmg05 00:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually the history does exist as an independent article (History of Texas A&M University) and it's a fair statement that the history section in the main TAMU article should be downsized. --Claygate 02:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Ntmg05. Writing a separate article about the campus is a great idea. This will shrink the article a bit, since we are already at 82 KB, which is rather large. Michigan State, which is a featured article, has an article about its campus.BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also, is List of facilities at Texas A&M University of any use? It's just a listing of the buildings at A&M. We should put it up for deletion. BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Beginning of the Campus section has "350 acres (0 km²)." Could someone in the know please fix? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. The rounding value was set to -1, so the number kept rounding to zero. BlueAg09 (Talk) 05:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

We gotta shrink this article down a bit (most FAs are in the 30-50K range) before we submit for FA. As long as we get close, I think we'll be fine. Any thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The history section can be condensed (especially since we have another article on which to completely rely). I think the 2000-present section is a bad joke and needs to just be incorporated into a new "1950-present" heading.

I think the list of buildings can be dramatically condensed to just 2-4 buildings (Academic bldg, Kyle Field, Admin bldg, & George Bush Library). As nice as the rest are, they just aren't necessary; they can stay in the intro and we can keep the picts, but full descriptions aren't necessary.

Condense Res life WAY down. Delete student gov't and media or dramatically condense to 1-2 sentences and better incorporate into student life.

Given how much work has gone into these, I am hesitant to cut anything, so I'll wait until I get some feedback before I make a hatchet job of the article. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

My 2 cents: The Duke University and Cornell University pages are each over 75kb, so we may not really be that far off. I would make the following changes:

• remove history subsection 2000-present. Include the line about AAU induction in the research or academic sections.
• Trim the rankings section -- can we settle on only 2 or 3 overall rankings?
• For notable buildings, move the sentence about library holdings to research, then remove libraries. Remove Bush Library (this is mentioned in history). Should Kyle Field be moved to athletics section (and maybe the history removed)?
• Remove student gov't section -- i don't think it's particularly noteworthy. We could maybe have a sentence or two in the activities section about it.
• I'd remove the O&M picture -- it's the only one of that size and shape and to me it distracts from the text.
• Keep student media -- The Batt is an award-winning newspaper

Karanacs 13:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

A considerable amount of space is taken by citation templates, thumbnail images, and all those boxes at the bottom of the page. Lets not remove useful content to make up for wasted space. Wikipedia is meant to house all knowledge, but just in a very straight forward manner.

• Student Government - Though I agree this might not be as noteworthy as other sections, University of Michigan incorporates a very distinguished Government section. I believe a summary should be left here, and any other details moved to a separate article.
• O&M Picture - This is a great picture but as Karanacs said, it doesn't fit.
• Student Media - Should be kept, there is considerable history. Some of which is not covered including W5AC, founded in 1912, gave the first football radio coverage. w5ac.tamu.edu/
• Rankings - I think the department rankings should be moved to their respective articles.
• Notable Buildings - No opinion at this time.
• History - Agree with Karanacs.

-- Hut101 16:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Edited history, just condensed the entire thin down to 1 paragraph and put it at the end of the 1950-present section (it's part of the history and is of note). Just tell me what you think. If you don't like it, we can change it.

• Article Length - Great to know we aren't too far off in our edits then as far as the size of other FAs!!! The pictures and references at the bottom of the article doesn't contribute to its length, only the text does. Wikipedia inserts those from links, so this isn't our problems with length.
• Student Gov't - Sure. A 1-2 sentence summary is fine. The rest should be put into its own article.
• Rankings - Consider it trimmed
• Student Media - Not saying it all should go, just summarized down to 2 sentences. Keep the Batt? Absolutely. Keep the Aggieland? Sure. Everything else? could be summarized and put in 1 sentence: "Other student-led media include..." simply incorporate that into the Res life section. BTW, the first play-by-play by radio for college football is covered in the Kyle Field section
• Notable buildings - Consider Karanacs's suggestions done, except Kyle Field. I think Kyle Field should stay as a prominent facility that is visible from nearly 20 miles away (I know because I could see it from outside Caldwell every time I got close to A&M...my freshman year, it always gave me a sinking feeling in my stomach knowing I was going back to my pissheads...for some reason, that feeling always occurs to this day). It is also a facility that many people (I would guess most of our visitors) visit when they come to A&M for a football game.
• O&M Picture - (insert 10 year old whining here) Come on! (cease whining) Is there a better place to put it (such as the end of the article)?

I'm moving back to the left so that we don't get too right-adjusted here.

• I like the history changes.:)
• I feel bad that Kyle Field gives you a sinking feeling -- I always get excited when I see it, because I know I'm almost "home." Of course, I was never going back to a group of people who's sole role in life was to make my life misearable ;)
• I still like the student media section, and I think Hut101 might have a point -- we probably ought to move the info about the first play-by-play to the media section.
• I've been trying to think of where else the O&M picture could go, and then only thing I could think of is to add the building in the Notable Buildings section and then the picture might be able to stay there. As beautiful as it is, it's an awkwardly shaped size and I don't even know if it would look good there.

Karanacs 18:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think AggieSat needs to be put back in. I suspect there aren't that many other universities whose undergrads are planning to launch a satellite. We need a way to stress the fact that undergrads do participate in significant research, and I think this is the most interesting example we could provide. Karanacs 19:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Disagree completely with removal of AggieSat.

• AggieSat was removed and replaced with a very general paragraph which states no hard facts. Despite the reasoning, "80 students", AggieSat lab is a research project open to all A&M students year around. They are currently preparing to compete in Nanosat-5 competition that will take two years, and a considerable joint effort by the Aerospace department. Also, though loosing the Nanosat-4 competition, A&M competed directly with 12 other universities allowed into the competition by the Air Force, out of thousands of universities around the nation.
• History - Changes are great.
• Media - Not sure what to do about W5AC, I don't really consider it a good idea to create a copy of the same information.

-- Hut101 19:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think we might be being a little hasty today with content changes to the article -- we're missing the article stability requirement now. Of the most recent changes:

• I disagree with removing the subheading for student media and with most of the editing of that section. (and both Hut101 and I had said that before)
• The Aggie band image has messed up the formatting in the Activities section
• I don't disagree with the changes you made to residential life - southside paragraph, but now the paragraph is too short.
• Would it be agreeable to everyone to revert these specific changes (leaving student gov't in with activities and leaving the new order of the section) and then consider the content of the article stable except for smaller reordering/copyediting within individual sections to make it flow better? That would mean no more additions/deletions of any content unless we all agree on it?

Thanks, Karanacs 20:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

AggieSat replacement is fine by me. I am not so prideful as to keep my changes if no noe wants them, but can it be summarized a bit? FYI, at least 12 other universities are involved (so we aren't the only one), Embry Riddle has already sent a satellite into space and the Air Force Academy has already sent 10 (9 of which actually made it; 1 was destroyed shortly after liftoff). In short, it isn't that unique.

I integrated W5AC into the Kyle Field section.

Moved O&M pict to the bottom of the article. Seemed fitting: end of the day vs end of the page.

As for stability, I think we're fine. We are just summarizing sections that already exist. We aren't really adding/deleting whole sections. Add to the SouthSide section or merge with Corps section.

Quite frankly, I think we are to the point where we need to go ahead and submit for a GA review. We all have ideas as to how it should be done, but none of that matters much if the GA review says otherwise. Thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Structural changes to the article that include major-additions, deletions and movement of information should require two agreeing members. Any compromise should be agreed upon by two individuals not including the individual who forwarded the compromise.

Section should be added back. Modification can be added later.

• Agree -- Hut101 20:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Disagree: Section is unnecessarily long and wordy. -- — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Compromise: How about we take a look at the other university, and see if we can't write a summary. If you agree, I will write an article that will go into greater detail that we can link too. -- Hut101 21:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Agree: Sounds good to me. -- BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Agree: Thanks for volunteering. -- Karanacs 21:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Agree: Fair nuff! — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

CONCLUDED: Action concluded.

Section should be added back. Modification can be added later.

• Agree: There are considerable noteworthy on campus medias that both Aggies and Non-Aggies might be interested in. I due stress Aggies might want to have a list of A&M related media outlets. -- Hut101 20:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Disagree: Section is unnecessarily long and wordy. -- — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Agree: It's important enough for its own section. -- Karanacs 21:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Section must be modified. This section looks like it's a sub section of Traditions due to the bonfire picture.

• Agree -- Hut101 20:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Agree -- BlueAg09 (Talk) 23:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Agree: Needs more quality additions. If they cannot be added due to trivialness (is that a word?), we need to incorporate this info elsewhere. Realize that the pict will vary from browser to browser and with different display settings, so the picture really isn't a good reason to "fix" it. -- — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Proposal: I don't have knowledge of any other good additions to this (beyond that stupid reality show (Sidelines?) a few years ago). Can we remove this section and split up the references this way: We've Never Been Licked in the history section. The Fish Drill Team reference under Activities. Maybe The Junction Boys can be mentioned in the football section? - Karanacs 21:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Agree -- Hut101 21:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Paragraph containing "Among individual colleges, departments, and programs,..." which includes rankings for the different colleges should be moved to their respective articles.

• Agree -- Hut101 20:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Agree -- — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

CONCLUDED: Action concluded.

I believe this section should be removed. It seems to be a random collection of links to A&M traditions. Hut101 21:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Disagree - Per WP:MoS WP:GTL, this should be part of each article. We just need to be a little more specific to articles we want to link to.
• Agree - WP:GTL says optional. FAs like Duke University don't have one, and I think we've done an excellent job of incorporating most Aggieness into the article. Karanacs 02:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Disagree: Though I agree with WP:GTL, the current links in the section should be removed under: "it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article.". We need a strong definition of what goes there. -- Hut101 03:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Any section that is considered complete such that no additional re-writes or heavy copy editing is required, should require three agreeing members. Any compromise should be agreed upon by two individuals not including the individual who forwarded the compromise.

Assigned to: Hut101

• Agree: Completed re write -- Hut101 21:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Agree: Strong agree. -- BlueAg09 (Talk) 23:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
• LOVE the new first paragraph. Can we take out these two lines:

A&M ranks 13th among all U.S. research universities in exchange agreements with institutions abroad and student participation in study abroad programs (This is already in the worldwide section.)

due in part to funding from John Sperling. -- does it matter where we got the funding?

-- Karanacs 02:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

INFO: John Sperling is an article, therefore we can link to it. Also, it was his money that allowed A&M to clone the cat after he had originally asked A&M to clone a dog. For the other sentence I am removing the second part, but the first part does involve the subject of research directly, therefor deserves mention in the Research section. -- Hut101 03:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

CONCLUDED: Section is finalized, restrict editing to grammatical errors.

Assigned to: BQZip071

• Agree: I think with the changed BQZip made today this entire section is done. -- Karanacs 21:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Agree -- Hut101 22:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Agree -- BlueAg09 (Talk) 23:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
• In short, I agree...but I was class of '01 not some rank rookie from '07 :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Questions

1. Should we delete the reference to "the state's first public institution of higher learning..."? This is redundant since it is mentioned in the opening paragraph?
2. I would like to rewrite the first instance of "Texas AMC" in History-1870-1900, 2nd para, 4th sentence to "the college" so as to not be redundant in the same sentence.
3. It needs to be made clear (and I thought I fixed it once already) that the 20,229 people in WWII who came from A&M were produced during US participation in WWII (1 June 1941-2 September 1945), not just the number who served. Same goes for the other numbers in the vicinity. IMHO this is NOT okay as written since it actually decreases the number we contributed to the war effort. I propose changing it to read:

Change from

"Aggies again served in high numbers during World War II, with 20,229 Aggies in combat."

to

"Aggies again served in high numbers during World War II, with the college producing 20,229 combat troops."

Everyone okay with that? Other than that, I'm gonna make a few minor citation changes, redundant info removal, and grammar cracks. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Agree -- Hut101 01:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
• I don't think I understand the difference between the two versions of that sentence, but if you think it's inaccurate is written, please change it. I agree with all the changes except that WP:Lead says we shouldn't have anything in the lead that's not also in the text. I think we should keep the reference to "first public institution" in the history section. Karanacs 02:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

"first public institution" stays - good point.

The difference is the following: School A has 2000 of its graduates in combat. School B produced 8000 troops during the conflict plus it had 1000 additional graduates who were in the military before the conflict started. Texas A&M was hastily made into a soldier- and sailor-producing machine that cranked out troops. If you'll notice, not all were officers and not all graduated. This is important because it is why we have a Former Students Association and not merely an Alumni Association and you don't need to be a graduate to be a "true" Aggie.

— BQZip01 — ^talk 02:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Completed. Agreed. Done!

CONCLUDED: Section is finalized, restrict editing to grammatical errors.

Assigned to: Hut101

• Agree: I did a complete re write to fix horrible errors. Though I think it should be expanded considerably, I am willing to call is final. -- Hut101 00:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Agree: I think this is fine. It accurately includes the pertinent info.Karanacs 02:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Disagree: The sentence, "This has challenged the university to increase sponsored research and private donations," makes no sense. How did today's budget (the present) of which 10% PUF challenge them to find new sources (in the past)? — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

CORRECTION: Do you agree with the corrections I made? -- Hut101 03:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Assigned to: BlueAg09

• Agree: Now that BlueAg09 has created the new article, I think this is done. It also shortened the article by quite a bit. -- Karanacs 02:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Agree -- Hut101 03:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think they are done. Karanacs 02:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not done. Recommend deleting, "In the fall of 2006, 3,575 international students came from 132 countries to attend Texas A&M, with the majority of those students pursuing graduate degrees." since it is redundant information from #Profile. The next sentence, "The same semester over 1,200 Texas A&M students, primarily undergraduates, studied abroad." Should be rephrased as, "In 2003, over 1,200 Texas A&M students, primarily undergraduates, studied abroad." and added to the previous paragraph. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Assigned to: Someone take over completion of this section!

• Agree: I think this looks good. Karanacs 02:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Disagree (please slow down and try to look a little closer):

1. "Southside contains dormitories for members of the Core of Cadets and other students." Now fixed
2. "While some dormitories are single-sex, others are co-educational, with students of different genders living on alternating floors." This is not true of the Corps dorms.
3. Northside dorms do NOT span the entire north side of the campus, only a small portion of it.

— BQZip01 — ^talk 03:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Disagree: For above reseasons ^. -- Hut101 03:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think this is probably the section that needs the most help. It is probably good enough, but.... Should we also mention the Yell Leaders (they are certainly unique) and the band (one of the few college military-style bands)? We might also want to mention a few of the other sports that the university supports - at least name them, and mention any groups that have done quite well -- tennis, soccer, and volleyball tend to be ranked highly, right? Karanacs 02:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

How about putting the band and yell leaders in the traditions section. It'll beef that section up a bit. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think this does a good job at mentioning the most important traditions. The only things I have thought of adding are "From the outside looking in..." or the fact that if we do something twice it is a tradition. Karanacs 02:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I vote this is done. Karanacs 02:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Incomplete. How about our lone astronaut? Perfect place for it— BQZip01 — ^talk 02:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I proposed this article for deletion, since I didn't think it would be of good use. We can create the "campus" article mentioned earlier to replace it. You can see the deletion discussion here and vote whether you want it to be deleted or not. BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that some of the picture captions conclude with a period and some do not. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it at the moment. Thought I'd bring it up and let y'all decide which way you want to go. --Wordbuilder 01:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Get rid of them unless there is more than one sentence. just my 2 cents. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Here's what I mean by trimming down this article. [Click me http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Texas_A%26M_University&oldid=131188338]

As you'll see, I think this article can be significantly trimmed down while still capturing the basic knowledge and essence of Texas A&M simply by cutting the flab, or more precisely, by moving non-essential information to other fully developed articles where it belongs.

And sorry in advance for the edit; I realize that's a technical violation of policy by editing to prove a point, but I reverted it almost immediately to avoid any problems. --Ntmg05 01:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

A little too severe IMHO. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Again, keep in mind that none of the information would be lost. It simply would be moved to a more appropriate place. Not only would the main article be stronger for it, individual tidbits that are currently being lost in the current mass of text would find increased prominence in articles written specifically about their topic, i.e. Campus Life, etc. --Ntmg05 01:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good job, but I agree with BQZip01 that this is probably too severe. I know I am more likely to read the main article and skip the detailed sections unless I am really curious by what I read in the main article, and I think this version might be taking out the tidbits that make you curious enough to read further. I reserve the right to change my mind if the FA Review finds the current article too long. Karanacs 02:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply