Talk:University of Texas at Austin/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Delisting GA

There are several problems with this article which don't satisfy good article criteria.

  • First, under "Student organizations" - take out external links.
 Done --Eustress (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Citations needed in Varsity Sports, Student Media, Campus, History.
  • Prose: With strong academic programs in the sciences, arts, media, business, law, engineering, and public policy, as well as a successful athletics program, The University of Texas has seen many now notable persons pass through its halls. - doesn't make sense
  • Citations: Many of the citations aren't according to CITE. Some are dead.

Please fix these problems, and re-submit for GAR. miranda 19:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

History

This is not my page, and I guess I am sort of biased against t.u. being that i am an Aggie. But the sniper incidents seems like a very big deal. Reading though your archives I found this and this.

Maybe y'all did a little too much trimming because I can't find the word sniper in the whole article, and I just added a link to Charles Whitman on the only place where it is mentioned. Shouldn't something like that be mentioned in the history section. To add on that point, shouldn't receiving of the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum be mentioned in the history section page also.

Thanks and Gig em! Oldag07 (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My recent edits

I've gone ahead and made several revisions/additions to the article similar to university featured articles.

The history section didn't have anything about the proposed Brackenridge Tract move (which at the time was a very important issue and the information flows into the info about the west Texas oil for UT), Charles Whitman shootings (excluding this would be the same as excluding the shootings at Virgina Tech or Columbine), opening of the LBJ presidential library (1st on a college campus & most visited presidential library) and the recent construction boom (the Blanton is a tourist draw just like Ransom Center or the LBJ library & DKR-TMS's expansion is a new largest just like Jester Center earlier in the Recent history section).

Splitting the Media and Traditions sections had to be done. While there isn't a lot on either one yet, both of these sections have a lot of potential. If no one beats me to it (wouldn't be upset what so ever) when I have an outline for a separate traditions article, a longer summery will defiantly be added.

Any comments/revisions/additions would be appreciated. Thanks NThomas76207 (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice work! --Eustress (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Administration

Steve Leslie is the provost of UT. This should be added underneath president.

Why? If there is some rationale behind your response, please add it. If there isn't and you think it should be there, go ahead and add it anyway. This encyclopedia is open to anyone. If there is a problem with the information, someone will fix it or change it. Please make sure you add a source for that information. — BQZip01 — talk 23:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I just added it. I thought it was relevant since most university pages list the president and the provost. --AndrewSolomon (talk) 05:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Friar Society

A page should be created about the Friar Society. It is referenced in the student organization section of this page. It is also recognized in the wikipedia list of Collegiate secret societies in North America. Most all of these societies have their own pages.

I would create it myself, but I am new to editing in Wikipedia, and all of my attempts have been deleted. If someone could help me, I would greatly appreciate it. --AndrewSolomon (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure. How can we help? — BQZip01 — talk 07:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-free content

There were no less than three non-free images being used in the infobox in this article - I have pared the usage down to one, in order to bring this article into better compliance with the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, specifically #3 and #8. The secondary logo has no identifying use which is not served by the primary one, and the Longhorn logo was simply being used as an icon, which is also frowned upon by the Manual of Style. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(There were also no more than three non-free images in the infobox too: a.k.a. "three"). Couldn't disagree more and I have reverted accordingly. The longhorn logo is most associated with the university while the seal is the official seal of the University. Both have their place under fair use. By omitting the longhorn logo, you are removing the single most identifying logo associated with the University. By removing the seal, you are removing the sole official seal of the university. Harvard has the same logo for both, but other schools have more than one. Additionally, it is not an icon, it is a logo. The text image doesn't seem to need to be there, but I also think it doesn't hurt. This logo has been used a LOT recently in an advertising campaign. There are no fair use violations with this image. Minimal use for identification is appropriate and no criterion of WP:NFCC prohibits their use. — BQZip01 — talk 23:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I concur with BQZip01. I wouldn't trouble yourselves with this one Horns. You've got backing from Aggies and Red Raiders.--Elred (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Uh oh...Isn't this part of the list? — BQZip01 — talk 04:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Ooops! Did I just put some sort of doomsday scenario in motion?  ;) --Elred (talk) 04:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, that cinches it! This economy is going down the drain and now this...I am SO not paying my bills this month! I'm sure the courts will understand... — BQZip01 — talk 08:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

What needs to be done for FA?

What needs to be done for this page to be a FA? According to Wikipedia:Featured article criteria: I can only guess 2.C (consistent citations) is where we would fail.

What can be done besides rewriting the article? NThomas76207 (talk) 07:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think writing style and citations are the main issues. But we should probably get the article back up to GA first. --Eustress (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I recommend trying to duplicate the format used on Texas A&M University and Texas Tech University. When we got TTU to FA we used TAMU as the primary template. It would make sense that UTs page would come together in a similar fashion. Also, TTU's page is the most recently 'blessed' university FA and the standards for approval probably get more stringent as time passes. So that might be the best example of the current bar. Once you guys get close I'll try to help where I can.--Elred (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Rankings

The rankings section looks a lot cleaner than it used to, however I've noticed that the chart of graduate school rankings doesn't have a source cited, and should also probably have some kind of caption to help it fit into the section (as it is now the chart seems completely out of place) and also explaining where the numbers come from. The graduate school rankings I found from a different citation on this page don't match up to these at all.

In addition, I think it would be worth making the Department/School the official name at UT (i.e., change Science to Natural Sciences), not the category defined by the individuals who created the rankings.khalfani_khaldun (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I'm working on the section in one of my sandboxes and will make some significant changes soon. Best --

Yes, the rankings are cleaner, but it has been slightly outdated and inconsistent. For example, between the main ranking page and the UT Austin page, one US News Report ranking uses the 08 version and one uses the 09 version where the ranks are 44 and 47. Another example is that one page uses the 07 and one uses the 08 version where one is around 50 and one is around 70. In other words, I think this could be cleaned up a little. Oh yeah, we should probably delete that 04 THES rank because THES is consistently flawed (even the improved 08 version is flawed)and the older the version, the more flawed it is (in US NR, that might not be the case, but THES is a HUGE work in progress).Whsie (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Tejas Club Merger

I don't think that The Tejas Club should be merged with this page. It should have its own page. If you merge it, you open the door to every student organization at UT under consideration for merger rather than having their own distinct page.

The organization is significant enough to warrant its own page. It has been around since 1925, and its members have had a large effect on the UT student life (many student body presidents), the UT administration (see W. Page Keeton), and the world (see Rex Tillerson)-- just to name a few examples. It should have its own page, and it should not be nominated for deletion again. I'm sorry I missed the discussion on this, are there other suggestions?

For the record, I am not a member of the Tejas Club. --AndrewSolomon (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest re-nominating the article and arguing for keep, if that's what you'd like to do. It seems to me that the best argument for merge in the debate was actually a reasonable argument for keeping it. On the other hand, though this may open it up for other orgs to be included, if it got to be excessive (more than two or three prominent ones) I don't see why it couldn't then be split off into a separate List of Student Organizations at the University of Texas at Austin article. KhalfaniKhaldun 07:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Concur with both above. Please let me know if you decide to list it. — BQZip01 — talk 07:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


The merger looks terrible. If we merge the Tejas Club in than ever group should be added. I see no reason The Tejas Club cannot have its own page.

The merger does look pretty bad...--71.42.216.162 (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Boosterism

User:Sampanning recently made some contributions re: honors programs at UTA that read as blatant advertising for the programs. I also caught some other fairly egregious instances of boosterism, weasel-words, and peacockery throughout the article. I remind all editors, even those affiliated with the university, that this is an encyclopedia that covers its topics with a neutral point of view. Remember to assert facts, not opinions and don't tell the reader what to think. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Universities COTM Nomination

Hello University of Texas at Austin contributors. I just wanted to let you all know that this university has been nominated for next month's WikiProject Universities Collaboration of the Month. If you'd like to take advantage of this opportunity, be sure to vote for the university. While you're there, consider helping improve one of our current Collaborations of the Month.

Happy editing! -Mabeenot (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Big 12 WikiProject

I'm trying to gauge the interested in created a Big 12 WikiProject and wondering who would like to be involved. There are already pages for WikiProject Big Ten and WikiProject ACC. A Big 12 project would cover the schools themselves and anything to do with conference sports including: events, rivalries, teams, seasons, championships and lore. There is already quite a bit of activity here on Wikipedia regarding the Big 12, and I think a project could help coordinate and unify our efforts. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Big 12 if you are interested, and add your name to the list. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


Land-Grant?

UT isn't a federal land-grant school, per the common usage referring (and linked to in the article) to the Morrill act. Land-grant should be removed or noted that it is a state, not federal, land-grant. -Kraft (talk) 06:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Architecture

The "Architecture" section of this article contains no citations and is full of original research. Moreover, it contains strong bias (e.g., "their utilitarian performance was necessary during times when the University experienced unprecedented growth" and "striking aesthetic appeal"). The section has been tagged since September 2009, so it is time to take action on this—either the section needs to be dramatically improved (rewritten) or deleted altogether. --Jr1038 (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yale Patt picture

Would someone at UT mind getting a picture of Yale Patt for me? Raul654 (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Prominent Alumni list

Having been to campus and Royal stadium, I would like to add Joe Jamail to the list. I was surprised to see that his name was not in the alumni section of the UT page on Wikipedia when you can actually find his bio on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Jamail He is the wealthiest lawyer in the country and is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, donor to the school. Is there a reason for this omission? Thanks! HB —Preceding unsigned comment added by HB1968 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Cave murder and Tooley suicide references

I do agree with the edit made by Jk61 regarding this deletion of the Jennifer Cave/Colton Pitonyak murder story, which has no direct connection to UT Austin. Indeed, there have been other incidents involving UT students which have happened off-campus that are perhaps equally notable (e.g., the double murder of John Goosey and Stacy Barnett in 2009). Certainly these are tragic events, but they are not significant in the context of the history of the university itself. Thus, I propose deletion of this paragraph.

By contrast, the Colton Tooley suicide occurred on campus and resulted in a lockdown of the university. Since this incident was directly connected to UT, I suggest it remain briefly referenced in the "Recent History" section.

Jr1038 (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to trimming these incidents to one sentence each. In the historical context of this institution these only merit that much mention in this article, if that. ElKevbo (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Official Name

There is a major problem with the naming. The official name of UT-Austin is "The University of Texas at Austin", not "University of Texas at Austin". All graduate dissertations and masters degrees are required to use that name and won't be accepted is they use the more colloquial "University of Texas at Austin". This mistake permeates the article. Think of it as having the same status as a "legal name." Correcting it would require both thought and skill to clean up the links, probably requiring "University of Texas at Austin" to automatically link to "The University of Texas at Austin."

Eustress (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is fine to use "The University of Texas at Austin" within the article. However, the article should remain where it is now. Ohio State University has had a similar discussion. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't there a naming convention about this already? I agree that the article and all links to the article should be The University of Texas at Austin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NThomas76207 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by your lead question. There was a discussion awhile back about University of Texas redirecting here. However, I don't remember one about the topic at hand. →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"University of Texas at Austin" should redirect to "The University of Texas at Austin". Using the example of Ohio State above is a weak argument because another mistake isn't proper justification for making second mistake. They're both wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdlkfadslkdsf (talk • contribs) 19:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of right vs. wrong/mistake. The OSU redirect came as the result of consensus. →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, wikipedia is not required to use to the official name of "The University of Texas at Austin". Its mostly whatever the wikipedia community wants. NThomas76207 (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
"Unfortunately, wikipedia is not required to use to the official name" is a lame excuse. If the purpose of Wikipedia is to be as accurate as possible than the title should be changed to “The University of Texas”. Seems to me that this is more of a case of people that did not attend UT acting out. It needs to be changed.Mickey 23:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeyp2814 (talk • contribs)

"Longhorns" movie inclusion

A user is attempting to insert a synopsis of a minor film into the "Media" section. This doesn't really make any sense, since the rest of the section is about media which is produced at the University of Texas. This isn't a "UT in popular culture" section or other assortment of trivia, so I don't think it belongs. Other users have also pointed out that IMDB is not always a reliable reference for material such as this. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

And the IMDB reference dose not refer to this university at all despite the editors protestations to the contrary. It just says it is in Texas. Three reverts from the logged in user + two others from an IP at Texas A&M University. IMDB synopsis is just another wiki and cannot be considered reliable. No response to requests to bring it here just insistence they are right. noq (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Even if the IMDB info is correct it does not establish the notability or importance of this movie. So that argument has to be made, too. ElKevbo (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Jayne Mansfield

Can someone add to the article the time she studied at the university, from which year to which year? Aditya(talk • contribs) 21:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Whether the "flagship" status of a university can be presented as objective fact

There is currently an RfC on this question at Talk:University of Maine#Flagship RFC. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The University of Texas System clearly states that The University of Texas at Austin is the flagship university for the system just as Texas A&M University is the flagship of the Texas A&M University System. References are in the respective university articles. NThomas (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I cant believe this had to be discussed. It is so obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.191.16 (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Missing brains?

There has been a recent news story about the university losing track of 100 brains. It might be appropriate to mention this, either in this article, or a subsidiary article. Here are some links:

This discusses the collection in general: http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/a-lost-collection-of-abnormal-brains-finally-gets-a-history This is a link to the building where they were stored: https://www.utexas.edu/maps/main/buildings/arc.html

I'd be grateful for any help drafting a paragraph on this, and/or opinions on where (or if) it should be mentioned. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Official statements from the university:

Additional news stories:

Stranger and stranger. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not even news but ephemeral trivia that has no place in an encyclopedia unless it grows into something more than a bizarre curiosity. That's quite unlikely since the university has already announced that the article was mistaken. ElKevbo (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Update to University wordmark

Hello,

I am a staff member in the University Communications office (and new to the Wikipedia community). We would like to update the wordmark on UT's Wikipedia page. Please see the following two links as citations of the change:

Updated Guidelines: http://www.utexas.edu/brand-guidelines/new-academic-identity New marks: http://www.utexas.edu/brand-guidelines/new-academic-identity

Thanks!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikehornatut (talk • contribs) 14:57, March 5, 2015‎

Mike, the seal at the top of the infobox appears to be current but if there is a new wordmark to replace the one at the bottom of the infobox we'd appreciate if you could upload a copy! The image currently used in the infobox is hosted on Commons. If the new wordmark just has text or very straight-forward graphical elements such that the image isn't copyrightable then it would be fine to just upload the new version over the current one in Commons. If the new wordmark is more than simple text then you'll probably have to upload it to Wikipedia because Commons doesn't allow copyrighted images. You'd also have to update this infobox to use the new image, too, and it would probably be a good idea to ask for the one at Commons to be deleted if it's out of date.
Sorry if that sounds a little complicated. Please let us know if you need help or would prefer to just send the file to someone who can take care of these technical details for you; that's no problem! ElKevbo (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
That's correct. The UT Seal is not changing, but the wordmark (the image under the university's website address in the infobox) has changed. Since I have a clear conflict of interest as an employee of UT, I'd prefer not to edit the page directly. Is there someone I can send the new file to? Thank you so much!
Mikehornatut (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there is a conflict of interest here since you've been transparent and discussed what is a minor issue with everyone. But if you'd prefer to e-mail the file to me so I can upload it then feel free to do so; my contact information can be found here (I don't think you can send attachments using Wikipedia's built-in e-mail functionality). ElKevbo (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


If you need any assistance with edits, feel free to send them my way and I will assist, or find someone who can. Randolph Duke (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Texas_at_Austin/Archive_5&oldid=1137288367"