Talk:Texas A&M University/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

This archive is to make sure that items not related to the FA status proposal are not lost in transition. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Passed

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)

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

??? "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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

FA Status

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Pop culture removed

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)

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. 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. 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, where he received a degree in criminal justice. However, criminal justice is not one of the degree programs currently offered by the university. 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. 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, and Brad Nowell, former lead singer of the band Sublime in the "What I Got" music video. On the Ramones Rocket to Russia album cover, Dee Dee Ramone is seen wearing a Texas Aggies shirt with Ol' Sarge on it. 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.

History section

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)

• 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)

Notable Buildings Headings

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)

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

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)

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

Images as Promised

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)

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)

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

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

A&M Culture

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)

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

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)

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)

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

Table of Contents

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

Residential life update possiblities

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)

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)

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)

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)

formula "error"

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)

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

Deletions

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Article Stability

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)

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)

Structural Changes

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.

Student Government

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

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

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)

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

CONCLUDED: Action concluded.

Media modification

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)
• Disagree: Section is unnecessarily long and wordy. -- — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Agree: It's important enough for its own section. -- Karanacs 21:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

CONCLUDED: Action concluded.

Texas A&M in fiction and popular culture

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)
• Agree -- BlueAg09 (Talk) 23:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

• Agree -- Hut101 21:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Agree: I'm going to put the info in the Corps section and in the Notable people section. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

ACTION COMPLETED

Rankings

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

CONCLUDED: Action concluded.

Article Finalization

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.

Where we currently stand

• History

• Academics
  • Profile
  • Rankings
  • Endowment
  • Research
  • Worldwide

• Campus

• Student life DONE Awaiting subsection reviews
  • Residential life DONE 1 Agree
    • Corps of Cadets DONE 2 Agree
  • Activities DONE 1 Agree
  • Media

• Athletics DONE 1 Agree

• Traditions

• Notable people DONE 2 Agree

• See also Deleted with 3 Agreeing

Those items lined out are finalized. Restrict editing to minor changes: grammar, syntax, correcting wikilinks, etc. If you have a question as to whether or not you should do something, then ask.

History

Assigned to: BQZip071

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

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:

"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)

• Agree -- Hut101 01:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

• "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)

• I intend to add "former student" to the Tradition section. Per the request of Hut101, further information regarding this subject...
  • from http://www.hollywoodsportsbook.com/ncaa_football_history/footballhistory_tam.cfm , "There is no such thing at A&M as an alumni association or an Ex-Aggie; there are only former students. The Association of Former Students serves the same purpose as an alumni association, but an individual doesn’t have to graduate from A&M to be a member. Once an Aggie, always an Aggie."
  • And from the Former Student's Association website (This one is pasword protected, so not everyone can get to it. Once you are at the site, search for "former students".), http://www.aggienetwork.com/theAssociation/chronology.aspx , "23 June 1919: The Association of Former Students established with membership open to anyone who had attended the college for one year." — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Completed. Agreed. Done! — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Academics

Assigned to: Various

Profile

Assigned to: BlueAg09

• Agree: I think they are done. Karanacs 02:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree: Packing the department names into a paragraph doesn't make sense. I think it would be better to list them. Also, there is the new General Studies major, which requires one major, and two minors to complete. -- Hut101 03:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I actually thought that would be a creative way to avoid the list. Personally, I prefer the list, but since Wikipedia discourages lists and encourages prose, I went ahead and wrote the enrollment figures for each college. What does everyone else think? BlueAg09 (Talk) 09:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

None of the other FA university articles include a list. Each of them has integrated the list of colleges into a paragraph of prose, like ours. Because of that, I recommend that we leave it as is. Karanacs 14:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agree — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Agree: Good to go. BlueAg09 (Talk) 04:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Rankings

Assigned to: BlueAg09

• Agree: I think they are done. -- Karanacs 02:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Agree -- Hut101 03:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Agree: Made minor changes (added ordinals) — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Endowment

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)
• Agree: I think this is fine. It accurately includes the pertinent info.Karanacs 02:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Agree Section appropriately reworded. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Research

Assigned to: Hut101 : Need updating and expansion

• Agree: Completed re write -- Hut101 21:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Agree: Strong agree. -- BlueAg09 (Talk) 23:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Agree: 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)

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)

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

Worldwide

Assigned to: — BQZip01 — - Done

• Agree — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Agree Karanacs 19:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Agree: Thumbs up. BlueAg09 (Talk) 05:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Just FYI -- I fixed a dead citation in this section and changed the sentence "In 2003, over 1,200 Texas A&M students, primarily undergraduates, studied abroad at these facilities" to add " and through other programs," because the cite says that 1200 students studied abroad in 40 countries.... Still agree, and I am going to change this to concluded. Karanacs 00:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Campus

Assigned to: BlueAg09 - Done

• 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)
• Agree -- Hut101 03:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The old section had a few great picts that I'd hate to see orphaned. Let's be careful not to inadvertently get these images deleted. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree Agree: I'm not sure about removing the explanation of Main Campus and West Campus. The other FA university articles mention the divisions within their campus, and I think the very brief overview is useful. We might be able to prune that paragraph a little, but I'd like to see the two parts of campus mentioned. Karanacs 15:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree Agree: Looks good now. I'm going to go ahead and close this one out. Put main & west campus descriptions back in. See Karanacs's comments above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Student life

Assigned to: Various

Residential life

Assigned to: Karanacs DONE

• Agree: Great addition and corrections! — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Agree -- it would be nice if I signed off myself now that I'm done, wouldn't it? ;) Karanacs 01:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Old res life discussion

• Agree: I think this looks good. Karanacs 02:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

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

I fixed the section and refined it a bit. I also added a picture of the Corps Arches. If you think that's too many pictures for the section I'll take it out again. Thoughts on the section? Karanacs 14:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Is there any way we can fix the flow between these two sentences? During the 2006 fall semester, 20.5% of the student body lived on campus.[4] Housing is divided between two distinct sections located on opposite ends of campus. Seems a bit awkward to me. BlueAg09 (Talk) 05:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I combined those two sentences, so it should flow better now. Karanacs 00:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Corps of Cadets

Assigned to: BQZip01 ^talk Done!

• Agree — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree: 2nd paragraph includes a lot of history we don't need here (that's why there's a history section :)); instead maybe, "The Corps of Cadets is the oldest student organization on campus, and until 1965 all students were required to be members. As of fall 2006, the co-ed Corps boasts an enrollment of 2,318 cadets, representing all military branches. It is now composed of two Air Force Wings, two Army Brigades, and two Navy and Marine Regiments, as well as The Fightin' Texas Aggie Band whose members may be affiliated with any military branch." I'd also remove the picture of EJ Kyle. Karanacs 19:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Made requested changes, but kept part about 1974 being the year we admitted women into the Corps. How about now? — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Agree. Looks good. Karanacs 01:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Activities

Assigned to: Karanacs

• Agree- I made some changes to this section, removing the subheadings and adding a short paragraph on the Singing Cadets since they are a more visible student organization. I would like to move the Student Gov't paragraph under activities, too (without its own subheading). I checked the other FA universities, and they usually just included a paragraph in the Activities section. Other than that, I think this is done. Karanacs 14:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - Tweaked a little bit, but nothing substantive. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment See the Non Varsity sports that i have added in the athletics section. Oldag07 21:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Old Activities Discussion

Assigned to: Karanacs ^talk

• Disagree: (Karanacs 15:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

• Do we really need the individual sections for the Corps, Community Service and Intramurals? The new sections are really short, and I think combined they make a decent length for a section. I'd remove the headers and leave the text.
• I think it's wise to include a paragraph on the Corps. I'd remove the part about limited to men only (that implies that in 1965 the Corps was opened to women and that didn't happen until later). Is there anything else we can add to this to flesh out the paragraph -- maybe info about Corps-specific activities like March to the Brazos or even daily activities that non-regs don't participate in?

• Disagree: The Corps is such a major component of the University that I think it deserves more than a cursory glance of one paragraph. Sure, I can focus on it a bit more, but to make it its own section means it will have to be placed further down in the Activities section. IMHO, it deserves its own main bullet. Thoughts? In addition, let's try and keep each section in order within the talk page and use the same basic format so we can find it easier. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Proposal: If the Corps section can be expanded to three or four solid paragraphs, why don't we make it its own section between Residential Life and Activities (since it really fits into both) and then remove the other headings from within the Activities section.Karanacs 16:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree: Couldn't agree more...<sigh>...I'll tackle it...— BQZip01 — ^talk 19:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Media

Assigned to: BQZip01 ^talk

Done! — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agree I double-checked it and agree it is done. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Agree Looks good to me. BlueAg09 (Talk) 05:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Agree Karanacs 01:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Athletics

Assigned to: BQZip01 ^talk/Karanacs Done!

• Agree — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Should we move Athletics below traditions? I feel traditions are more important then sports, so we should put traditions in front for the order of importance. Oldag07 14:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sure, we can do that, but do you agree with the section being complete? BTW, great changes! — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Mostly. I'd understand why we wouldn't do this, we could mention ALL of the athletics events that we compete in the first paragraph. And mentioning the 12th man foundation might be a good idea too. Thoughts?Oldag07 18:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree: We compete in 20 different events and that would add quite a bit to the paragraph. Instead, users can click the link to the main page that has all of this already.

• Disagree Maybe a blurb on club teams and intramurals, could be good too. Or maybe that would be more approprate in student life? (see Non Varsity Sports below)Oldag07 18:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Blurb maybe (3-4 sentences), but I think we're getting too much into the weeds. I think this information should be included on the A&M Sports page. On top of that, let's keep our priorities in line here.

1. Get FA status.
2. Continue to improve the article.

My 2 cents — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agree Karanacs 01:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Old Athletics discussion

• Disagree: 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)
• Disagree: How about putting the band and yell leaders in the traditions section. It'll beef that section up a bit. Oh heck, I'll take it (time permitting). — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Band->Corps
• Yell Leaders->Traditions

Non Varsity Sports

Non Varsity Sports

The first time I put proper references on something I have wrote. Still, please check to see if i am correct. I think this paragraph could be condenced to 3-4 sentences. But this could fit well in the Texas Aggies page.

The Department of Recreational Sports at A&M runs many club and intramural sports. The Texas A&M Sports Club Association runs 30 student club teams ranging from sports ranging from Archery to Wrestling. The woman's archery team has won a notable 11 national championships. . The Texas A&M Woman's Gymnastics team, won the 2007 NAIGC National Championship. The A&m handball team has won many championships. The Texas A&M Judo team placed 3rd place in the 2007 National Collegiate championships. The men's lacrosse team won the 2007 LSA division a Championship. The Texas A&M polo club won the 2007 USPA Intercollegiate National Championship. The Texas A&M woman's Rugby Team were the Texas Rugby Union Champions from 2001-2006. The 2001 and 2005 men's soccer teams were NIRSA National Champions. Texas A&M hosted the collegiate Taekwondo national's and the Texas A&M club team won 2nd place in 2007

Intramurals are popular on campus, played on the Penberthy fields. The sports played include, basketball, outdoor soccer, slow-pitch softball, racquetball, tennis, badminton, table tennis, sand volleyball, 4- on -4 flag football, intertube water polo, and swim meets. Oldag07 20:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I really think this is not needed here, but go ahead and add it to the Texas Aggies page. The refs basically look good, but you may want to watch the citation templates and make sure you include all known info. You missed one ref in the 1st paragraph. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Compromise? How about in the activity section: "Intramurals and thirty non varsity club teams are popular forms of recreation for students"

Wordbuilder 22:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Traditions

Assigned to: BQZip01 ^talk

• Agree: 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)
• Disagree: Someone change the above sentence and I'll agree. It was better than "silly". -- Hut101 03:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree: I'll tackle this tomorrow (but not until tomorrow...man am I tired) if someone will fess up and admit that they put the word "zany" in there. I mean...zany!?...sheesh. We're missing a bunch including replant, aggie ring, yells, 12th man, etc. Kinda big ones to gloss over. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Do we really need to mention each of the big traditions on the main article? BlueAg09 (Talk) 23:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Done Please Agree, Disagree, or Comment below. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: What was the rationale to put some of the traditions on the main page? BlueAg09 (Talk) 06:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • We wanted to add more info about the traditions at A&M. It is one of the things that is most unique about the University. Wouldn't you agree? I also think it deserves some prominence. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Sounds good to me. I'm worried about the size though. We're at 91 KB now. BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
      • You have a point and I've been watching that quietly creep up. Once we get everything signed off, we can then discuss what to delete/rephrase, but IMHO, let's just leave it as-is and let the FA review do it's thing. The main reason it is so large is the quantity and quality of the citations (The notable people section contains so many citations that it bumped up the entire article by about 10K by itself, but the citations are needed). I just did a quick check of the size of the article without the citations and it came in at 49.7KB, almost half of the size of the article. IMHO, that definitely adheres to the spirit of the rules. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment:That's good to hear. Good thing we have a lot of citations. BlueAg09 (Talk) 05:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• I think it might be a little long, but it reads very well and is concise within each tradition. I'll Agree. I'm also taking BlueAg09's statement as an agree, so I'm calling this Concluded. Karanacs 01:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Notable people

Assigned to: BQZip01 ^talk

Done! Please vote here: Agree, Disagree, Comment — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agree — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Agree Karanacs

Old Notable people discussion

Disagree A few minor things:

• I think we need to stress a little that most of the people we are talking about are Former students, and I think we ought to mention Perry. How about changing the second sentence to:

Former students Jorge...., respectively, and Rick Perry is the current Governor of Texas.

• Can we change "Robert Earl Keen and Lyle Lovett went from being two guys strumming their guitars on the porch of their Northgate home to becoming world-reknowned country singers." to "REK and LL, who often strummed their guitars on the porch of their Northgate home, have become world-renowned country singers."
• And for George H. Gay, can we have something more like this: "In the Battle of Midway, Torpedo Squadron 8 attacked the Japanese fleet. The entire squadron perished, with the exception of George H. Gay, Jr., who witnessed the sinking of 3 Japanese aircraft carriers and, upon his rescue, personally reported to Admiral Nimitz."
• Potential changes: mention the number of Aggies in the NFL and NBA. We could also mention The Junction Boys here if we decide to do away with the pop culture section (there is a proposal to that affect above if you want to vote).

Good job -- I didn't know about Gay or Pailes. Karanacs 19:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll add Rick Perry and change the RLK & LL sentence (great rewrite BTW!...especially if you want the words spelled correctly...). I'll try to minimize the George Gay section, but I think we do a disservice to his unique importance by leaving out any more details, but I'll try to get it down to a short 2 sentences.

As for the number of Aggies in NFL and NBA, I don't think that is a good idea. I'd like for this section to be as static as possible and these numbers will fluctuate from month to month. Let's just list the "heroes." — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture, incorporated! — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree Bear Bryant isn't a former student, so shouldn't be listed. In athletics, Gary Kubiak deserves a mention; Yale Lary, John David Crow, Dante Hall, Ray Childress, and Shane Lechler have had good NFL careers and may be notable enough to mention; Chuck Knoblauch maybe for baseball. In politics, Joe Barton, Chet Edwards, Louie Gohmert, Will Wynn, and Rick Perry should be added. In business, Lowry Mays, George P. Mitchell, Joe Tortorice (founder of Jason's Deli), Kruse family (Blue Bell Creameries), Harris Pappas (president, co-owner of the Pappas Restaurant chains) should maybe be mentioned. James Earl Rudder should be added to the military list. What do you all think? -Texink 22:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Bryant isn't a former student, but was faculty. If you'll notice, I was very careful in my wording of the second sentence "The school has seen many of its students and faculty attain local, national, and international prominence." So, IMHO, he should stay. added back especially since he was the subject of The Junction Boys.
2. NFL careers of these guys (Yale Lary, John David Crow, Dante Hall, Ray Childress, and Shane Lechler) sound fine...I just have to find references and phrase them in.
3. Baseball, fine (I don't know much about the subject), but I'll read what is available online and make a judgment call. Added a couple of others as well.
4. I'll add all significant mayors, state reps, and national figures who were Aggies including Joe Barton, Chet Edwards, Louie Gohmert, Will Wynn. Rick Perry: see above comment. I will also add Phil Gramm (sp?) since he used to be a professor and is in many books an honorary Aggie for his actions after the Bonfire collapse. (Opted to skip Sen. Gramm. — BQZip01 —)
5. James Earl Rudder is already mentioned and I see little need to include him again. ::#Business: see below (Are all members of the Kruse family Aggies?) — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Adding "nationally-recognized" or similar adjectives might get the NPOV police to take them out. BlueAg09 (Talk) 23:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is why I used "prominence" (It took me three hours to come up with that wording). They are locally, nationally, and internationally prominent figures by virtue of their positions. "Recognition" would be difficult to prove. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, found your reference. Deleted it too. (That was someone else, not me) — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment For politics, do we really need to add the representatives and Will Wynn? They each have a definite sphere of influence, but I don't know if they need to be in the main article. Rudder is mentioned in the history section, so I don't know that he needs to be mentioned again. It may be wise to mention the business leaders, though. Karanacs 01:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I would normally agree about the representatives, but Edwards and Barton are very influential (although Gohmert isn't). In business, I think all current presidents, directors, and CEOs of notable companies should be listed, which would be about a dozen names/companies. Wen Ho Lee and Neal Boortz are both notable enough. For this section, I think it should be modeled on the University of Michigan and Duke University. No one person should be given more than a sentence description, in my opinion. -Texink 22:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Added Wen Ho Lee and Neal Boortz. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree Uh, I just started looking and I don't think you know just how many Aggies are out in the business world; I think "about a dozen names/companies" might be a little off. I found this [list and I need some help in paring it down. Just comment out anyone who doesn't seem to be in a "major company" and explain why (I'm not in the business world and have no clue which ones are big and which aren't):

Donald Adam, CEO, Adam Corporation

James R. Adams, former president of SBC and chairman of Texas Instruments

Pete Aldredge, president and CEO, Aerospace Corporation (according to website, not longer in this position)

Bruce Applebaum, president, Texaco Exploration

Mike Barnes, VP and CFO, Rockwall International

William R. Barnes, president, Traveler's Insurance Co.

James Belote, president, Bechtel

Michael R. Bonsignore, CEO, Honeywell, Inc.

Charles Bowman, former president and CEO of British Petroleum, U.S.A.

Jack Brown, partner, Wagner and Brown, Ltd.

Carlos H. Cantu, CEO, ServiceMaster

Lawrence M. Carrell, president, Texas Commerce Bank

Henry G. Cisneros, president, American City Vista

Charles Collins, president, Barnes & Click, Inc. (current president is A&M-grad Jack Whiteside) *

Don H. Davis, CEO and chairman, Rockwell International

Morris Foster, former president, Exxon International

Herbert A. Fox, president, Murphy Oil, U.S.A., Inc.

J.L. Frank, president, Marathon Ashland

Ray E. Galvin, former president, Chevron USA

Gregory Garland, president, Phillips Petroleum Company Qatar

Marvin J. Girouard, CEO, Pier 1 Imports

Tito Guerrero III, president, Stephen F. Austin State University

Michel T. Halbouty, chairman and CEO, Michel T. Halbouty Energy * (although now deceased)

William W. Hanna, president, Koch Industries

Chakib Khelil, Oil Minister, Algeria (official title is Minister for Energy and Mines)*

Tommy Knight, former president, Brown and Root, Inc.

Steven Letbetter, CEO, Reliant Energy

Jack E. Little, former president and CEO, Shell Exploration and Production Company (retired)

Lowry Mays, chairman and CEO, Clear Channel Communications *

Arthur McFerrin, president, KMCO

Michael McGuire, president, WinSim

William Merrell, CEO - Heinz Food

George P. Mitchell, chairman and CEO, Mitchell Energy and Dev. Corp. *

Erle A. Nye, CEO, TXU

Jorge F. Quiroga-Ramirez, President of Bolivia *

Ronald J. Robinson, president, Texaco Technology Division

Marvin Runyon, former Postmaster General of United States

John Sharp, former Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts

Les Shephard, director, Sandia National Laboratories

Jung U. Sio, president of Korea Mobil Telecom, Minister of Telecom, Republic of Korea

Dan Smith, president, CEO, Lyondell

Keiyu Veno, president, Dojindo Laboratories

Ronnie Ward, former vice president, Compaq

Jack M. Whitesides, vice president, Barnes and Click, Inc.

Marilyn Wilson, president and COO, H.J. Gruy and Associates Inc.

Oscar Wyatt, CEO, Coastal Oil Corporation

S. Shariq Yosufzai, president, Caltex Lubricants

H.B. Zachry, president, H.B. Zachry Company (H.B. Jr. is now chairman of the board; Aggie John Zachry is CEO of Zachry Corp. and a director at Clear Channel Communications; Aggie David Zachry is president and COO of Zachry Corp.) *

Jack Ward Thomas, chief, U.S. Forest Service

Help?! — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Commentthis section is getting way too long. Quite frankly, let's add a few business leaders from above and call it quits on this. The main page of these names more than makes up for anything we've missed. Please help me on the business leaders (today!!!) and give me a few Agrees so we can move on. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

On the business leaders, I put a star by who I think is notable (most of that list is out of date). It might be a good idea to say something like "Many former students have served as business leaders, particularly in the fields of energy, construction, and chemistry. Current leaders include..." Among those who haven't been listed, I believe Eduardo Castro-Wright (CEO of Wal-Mart Stores USA), Francis Turner (designer of Interstate Highway System), and Jeb Hensarling (U.S. Congressman) are notable. Anyone have differing opinions? -Texink 19:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The list is getting pretty long in the article. I think a one-line sentence about business leaders without names would be good: "Many former students have served as business leaders, particularly in the fields of energy, construction, and chemistry." (from above). If we HAVE to include some, I vote for Lowry Mays (founder of Clear Channel) and H.B. Zachry. Karanacs 20:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Karanacs.BlueAg09 (Talk) 20:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If we want to trim the notable people section, several of the football players and a significant portion of the military paragraphs can be cut. While current CEOs and presidents don't need to be listed, A&M has several (Mays, Mitchell, Halbouty, Zachry, among others) business/science/engineering pioneers who should be mentioned. -Texink 20:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

See also

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)

• Disagree Agree - 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)
  • 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)

Deleted since three people agreed it appeared to serve no useful purpose — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

List of facilities at Texas A&M University

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)

Periods in captions?

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)

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

I got rid of periods in captions that weren't 2 sentences long — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Article flab

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)

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

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)

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)

Branch campuses

Both Texas A&M at Qatar and Texas A&M at Galveston are branch campuses. Students at these campuses get identical degrees and also have a chance to earn an Aggie ring. Shouldn't there be a mention of this somewhere on the article? BlueAg09 (Talk) 09:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Texas A&M at Qatar is mentioned in the Worldwide section. If you'd rather we mention both together then we could remove Qatar from Worldwide and add a short paragraph in Profile, I guess. I think your first two sentences would probably do for the paragraphy. Karanacs 14:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Karanacs on this one. It is already mentioned and I don't think this information is anything much other than trivia. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Galveston is not mentioned in the whole article. i feel they deserve a spot too. if you don't have any objections, ill try to write a blurb. btw, i have not had internet access for about a week. Great job with the changes.Oldag07 19:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"Texas A&M performs marine research at its branch campus in Galveston, Texas" ????Oldag07 20:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets just say i made some friends from TAMUG this last week. I am strongly for adding a blurb on them Oldag07 20:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've known folks from TAMUG for years. Don't know how we missed them. They have been incorporated with the Qatar campus. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

FA criteria

Keep in mind of the featured article criteria while editing, especially #4. (Not accusing anyone here.) BlueAg09 (Talk) 10:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Article size

Folks we need to watch how big the file is getting. Try to keep it under 93K. If you have something to add that is going to put it over the limit, get agreement from at least two other people. Other than that, I think the article's size should pass IAW Wikipedia:Article size:

Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages (see above for what to exclude in size calculations):

Prose size*	What to do
> 100 KB	Almost certainly should be divided up
> 60 KB	Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)
> 40 KB	May eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
< 30 KB	Length alone does not justify division
< 1 KB	If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternately, why not fix it by adding more info? See Wikipedia:Stub. If it's an important article that's just too short, put it under Article Creation and Improvement Drive, a project to improve stubs or nonexistent articles.

*Specifically, for stylistic purposes, readable prose excludes: External links, Further reading, References, Footnotes, See also, and similar sections; Table of contents, tables, list-like sections, and similar content; and markup, interwiki links, URLs and similar formatting. To quickly estimate readable prose size, click on the printable version of the page, select all, copy, paste into an edit window, delete remaining items not counted in readable prose, and hit preview to see the page size warning. (Emphasis added)

— BQZip01 — ^talk 16:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point, BQZip01. That's one of the concerns I've had for the article. How much do the images add? Cutting an image may be one way to add text without increasing size. Not saying that needs to be done; just something to keep in mind. --Wordbuilder 18:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Images add almost nothing. If you don't understand how web pages work, here's the basics: The picture itself is stored on a server in the wikipedia databases. The page (the part that we edit and see) is only an intrpretation by the wikipedia page generating machine. It interprets our edits and generates a page every time it is accessed. The page information that we save does not include the images, only text in the page information that tells the page generator where to find the given image. It is the ame idea is when you have a shortcut to a program on your desktop; it's not the actual program, but a way for your operating system to find the given program.

In short, the images add almost nothing. They only count 1 byte for each character used. For example: Image:AmericanFlag plus the brackets around it is only 22 bytes, even if the picture itself is 3.5 Megabytes. Now a reference takes up much more space, especially with the citation templates. If each letter and space is one byte, then one reference can easily take up 100-200 bytes. That's why the notable people section takes up so much space for a mere 3 paragraphs.

I hope that makes it clear. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Notable People

Not sure exactly what happend to traditions and notable people in this section, but i put them back Now on this section, i think we could delete the list at the end, of the medal of honor winners, and just put a link to them. . ..

Possible areas of concern

POV - I didn't change these since POV/NPOV is often an area of debate. Reading the article with FA status in mind, I saw a few things that might be areas of concern:

• Under the "Residential life" subsection in the "Student life" section, the second paragraph refers to "the famous bar The Dixie Chicken."
• In the third paragraph of the "Notable people" section, Robert Earl Keen and Lyle Lovett are referred to as "world-renowned."
• In the same section, fifth paragraph, it states, "... Aggies have become legends in their respective branches..."

Other - The first paragraph in "Student traditions," "Aggie Ring," reads, "For decades, though unsanctioned and often discouraged by the University, it has become an unofficial tradition among willing students to 'dunk' their newly-acquired Aggie Rings." Is the tradition unofficial or merely unsanctioned by the school? If only unsanctioned, I would remove the word "unofficial."

Aside form these four things, the copyedits I've already taken care of, and the length, I didn't see any problems. Every statement that I would have questioned, and many that I would not have questioned, included adequate citations to support the claim. I would definitely support this article for FA status. --Wordbuilder 22:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)