Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Texas Aggie terms

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 23:11, 10 January 2009 [1].

List of Texas Aggie terms

edit

previous FLC (02:53, 5 March 2008)

I'm nominating this list as an exemplary example of what a featured list can be. As always, your comments are welcome. — BQZip01 — talk 01:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all major issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comment "This list of Texas Aggie terms..." We don't start Featured Lists like this anymore. See an article like Alabama Crimson Tide football seasons for an example of a good opening sentence. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thoughts? — BQZip01 — talk 07:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I like the creativity of the list, very nice! (even though I am a Longhorn;)

  • "senior military college"-->Senior Military College.
  • "It provides more commissioned officers to the United States Armed Forces than any other school outside of the service academies." This statement also needs a reference.
  • Done. Also removed the next sentence, an unsourced claim (the claim on the cited page was that ROTC produces more officers than anyone else, not VMI). — BQZip01 — talk 20:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several other land grant schools use "Aggie"" Comma after this phrase.
  • "Due to the November 18, 1999 collapse of bonfire"-->Due to the November 18, 1999 collapse of the bonfire (a very sad event, I remember reading about it in the paper).
  • ????? not sure if this should be done Oldag07 (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This shouldn't be done, but Bonfire is a proper noun and is treated as such (annotated on the Aggie Bonfire page too). You wouldn't say "We went to the Kyle Field," you'd say, "We went to Kyle Field."
  • "The initial phase of Aggie Bonfire construction, where students cut down logs"-->The initial phase of Aggie Bonfire construction in which students cut down logs.
  • Done
  • "Term referring to senior undergraduates"-->Term that refers to...
  • "A tradition where the senior class"-->A tradition in which the senior class
  • "Grodes were typically not washed until Bonfire burned, if ever." Why is the past tense used?
  • Bonfire has always been a difficult subject to write about. Officially the school does not sponsor the event due to lawsuits. As such, the student bonfire, is debatable as if it is a tradition or not. It is not on campus anymore, and is not quite the same thing anymore. Some have said, bonfire is an Aggie tradition, just not a Texas A&M tradition. To keep consistency with everything else, i changed the tense to of all bonfire related terms to past tense.
  • ""Highway 6 runs both ways"" You might mention that Highway 6 runs past Bryan/College Station (once again, bringing back memories)
  • Done.
  • "Ag" Can we refer to them in full "Aggies"?
  • Only used once, but i checked again. I removed the "ag" term and moved it to a separate sentence. Oldag07 (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Official greeting of Texas A&M University."-->Texas A&M University's official greeting.
  • "The second phase of Aggie Bonfire construction, where the newly cut logs are brought back to campus."-->The second phase of Aggie Bonfire construction in which the newly cut logs are brought back to campus.
  • "A Texas A&M pep rally like event."-->A Texas A&M event that is similar to a pep rally.
DoneOldag07 (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb87 (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Sources[reply]

  • A number of the sources need last access dates and/or publisher info (Refs 3, 4, 9, 26, 40, 54, 57, 64). In addition, all citation dates should be of the same format. Right now, you have a mish-mosh of international (DD-Month-YYYY) and ISO (YYYY-DD-MM).
  • For the first problem, we had a mix Citation/ Cite web/ news etc format. so we converted all citation templates into cite XXX for consistancy. it seems as of the parameter "newspaper" is in the citation template and, but not the cite news section. Oldag07 (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 80% done with this. it seems like some of the problem is template problem. the cite news template formats (yyyy-dd-mm) into (dd-month-yyyy). Cite web leaves it alone.Oldag07 (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't know what to do with the dates that only have months and years as publication dates. we cant sue the (YYYY-DD-MM) format i believe. Oldag07 (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is as good as I personally can get it. dates without days are going to simply be formatted different than the rest of them. Oldag07 (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 48 is not formatted like the other references.
  • Rdf 66 has something wacky in its formatting.
  • In many of the references, you put in the format as HTML. HTML is implied and does not to be signified.

Dabomb87 (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What makes http://www.salon.com/index.html a reliable source?
  • Reference 45 needs a publisher/work.
  • Why does ref 30 use the cite news template?
  • The cite web template does not force you to use the ISO formats. Change the remainder of the dates to international format, see my sample edits. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I fixed the rest of the dates to be international format. There are two redlinked dates, those are from the {{cite paper}} template. I have put in a request for an admin to remove the date links, the redlinks should disappear soon. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • The first five are sourced to the author of the photo (the uploader). As for moving that image to commons, fine, but that is an issue with the image, not this list. I see no reason to duplicate information about the uploader all over the image page when the history and source are already clearly marked.
  • The Sul Ross statue is a picture of a work of art from 1918. It can reasonably be argued that the statue's copyright is null and void, but in deference to the creator, we have kept it. The picture itself isn't copyrighted, but the statue is. Its purpose is for identification as there are many statues on campus. Given the prominence of this statue and the subject it represents, an image for purposes of identification is appropriate. — BQZip01 — talk 20:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meeting image use policy and all that is part of the criteria, but I will organize the info. I will use that last sentence you said to strengthen the FUR. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying it isn't part of the policy, but what part do these pictures violate? I must be missing it. — BQZip01 — talk 19:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Always tag your image with one of the image copyright tags. When in doubt, do not upload copyrighted images. done
  2. Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified. Examples include scanning a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer. For screenshots this means what the image is a screenshot of (the more detail the better). Do not put credits in images themselves. done
  • Ummm...I noticed you struck them out, but I haven't done anything. I just pointed out that they already met the criteria you mentioned. Is there something I'm missing here. — BQZip01 — talk 00:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was working on them earlier today. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I have strengthened the fair use rationale for the non-free image. I am working on the last free image. OK, I finished cleaning up the last image. All image issues are resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the inclusion criteria (scope) of the list? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done to the best of my knowledge. Oldag07 (talk) 06:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed inclusion criteria (copied from talk page) This is what i think it should be.

  • Terms unique our used in unique ways related to Texas A&M.
  • Major Bonfire terms
  • Major Athletics related terms
  • Terms not exclusively used by the Corps
  • Major traditions.
  • Terms related to major traditions
  • Terms that could be found on a basic tour of the university.

Suggestions. How do we convert that to prose? Oldag07 (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the third paragraph pretty much covers this. But I could add this sentence?
  • Terms exclusively used by the Corps of Cadets, and not the rest of the students are not included in this list to narrow the list size.
  • With these criteria, the term "old lady" would be on the chopping block. Pisshead/ Surgebutt/ Zip are questionable. That being said, this page is missing a whole lot of Corps exclusive terminology. Other than that, that, this new criteria fits everything else on the page. Oldag07 (talk) 15:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you should split off an exclusive page on Corps terminology and make this page for general Aggies terms.
  • After our Articles for Deletion debate about a year ago I am weary for starting an even more exclusive TAMU page. It is easy to find stuff on the terms "Wrecking crew", Reveille, or Bonfire. Not so easy to find "old lady". That being said, the corps does have a very good dictionary with their exclusive terms. [Corps Dictionary]. We have argued that this is a university source, making it pretty good, but it being an exclusive source for one page, would be questionable. Not to mention we would have to fight off accusations of fan cuft etc. Maybe a see also page at the bottom would be good. enough Oldag07 (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) OK, I did that myself. So the only thing left is the name, which I commented on below. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would be nice if all the finished stuff were to be under hidden templates, so it will be easier to tell what else needs to be done. Oldag07 (talk) 06:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from other reviewers are welcome. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't it be Texas Aggies terms? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, thank you for your pacience, suggestions, and help Dabomb87. They have greatly improved this page, and have made a very positive impact on this page.
As for the title of the page. I think the name is approprate. The way I see it, the phrase "Texas Aggie" here is used as an adjective.
The terms plural forms of these words Longhorns and Aggies are used only when the noun forms are used.
Longhorn used as a noun
  • The longhorns scored a touchdown.
Longhorn used as an adjective
  • The longhorn team scored a touchdown
Aggie used as a noun
  • The Aggies won the game
Aggie used as a adjective
  • The Aggie football team won the game.
In this case, the nouns are list and terms. The adjectives describing these are Texas Aggie.
Thoughts?Oldag07 (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but on further thought, why is it not Texas A&M Aggie terms? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a deal-breaker for me either, so I have supported. Asking the major editors in a neutral manner would not be considered canvassing. Maybe: Hello, List of Texas Aggie terms is up at Featured list candidates. At that page, there is a discussion about what the correct name of the article should be. Your input on the matter would be much appreciated. Thanks. Just a suggestion. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but since it is not a deal breaker, I moved the discussion to the talk page.Oldag07 (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A minor issue, but magazine, newspaper and journal names (ie. Sports Illustrated, Houston Chronicle, etc.) in the refs section should be italicized. -- Scorpion0422 23:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The wrong field was used. Fixed. Did I miss any? — BQZip01 — talk 00:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ref 7 is missing a publisher/work, and I think that Ref 41 to "The Maroon Weekly" is a publication (says that it is weekly newspaper). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good catch. The first had a publisher, but the citation template was the wrong one. Fixed Maroon Weekly. — BQZip01 — talk 01:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Looks like all issues have been addressed. Great List. KensplanetTC 09:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
    • "...its abbreviated form, "Ag"...." is not cited.
    • "...non-university sanctioned Bonfires, called Student Bonfire,..." shouldn't that be "...Student Bonfires...?
    • Don't abbreviate ROTC, I haven't a clue what it means, just write it out in full, especially since you don't use it more than once.
    • "Corps of Cadets at fish review fall of 06" - this caption means nothing to me. "fish review"? and I suppose you mean "Fall" and "of 2006"?
    • "...Colloquially "Corps Turd, etymologically "Cadet in Training"..." missing a " after Turd...
    • "See Elephant Walk" - I'd put a full stop after this.
    • Be consistent with full stops in captions - the "humping it" caption has one while the "gig 'em" caption doesn't yet both seem to be incomplete sentences to me.
    • Same with the "Flag room" caption.
    • Could you list the "Muster" citations in numerical order as per all other citations?
    • "...the dorms .." little informal - stick with dormitories.
    • I assume RAggies is supposed to have two capitalised letters.
    • "The Texas A&M mascot, now a purebred American collie." - I think "currently a ..." would make more sense.
    • Not sure you really need to link choir or buses...
    • "Texas Longhorns fans respond by saying t.u. stands for "The University"." not cited.
    • Is it Yell Leader or Yell leader? The caption has "yell leader"...
    • Ref 59 is dead. I haven't time to check the others... Since a lot of them have old retrieval dates (many from 2007), I suggest you check them all.
  • A few too many issues for me to support just yet. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...its abbreviated form, "Ag"...." is not cited.
  • It is now. Good catch.
  • "...non-university sanctioned Bonfires, called Student Bonfire,..." shouldn't that be "...Student Bonfires...?
  • No. In this case Student Bonfire is an event and an organization. Similar uses are in the article Aggie Bonfire and are consistent.
  • Don't abbreviate ROTC, I haven't a clue what it means, just write it out in full, especially since you don't use it more than once.
  • Did this one, per MOS:ABBR, abbreviations should be spelled out on their first appearance. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Corps of Cadets at fish review fall of 06" - this caption means nothing to me. "fish review"? and I suppose you mean "Fall" and "of 2006"?
  • <grimaces> yes. explanation: fish are freshmen, and in this context a "review" is a military review. This is the first military review of the school year. Fixed the rest and wikilinked for clarity
  • "...Colloquially "Corps Turd, etymologically "Cadet in Training"..." missing a " after Turd...
  • Missed that one. Thanks!
  • "See Elephant Walk" - I'd put a full stop after this.
  • okay
  • Be consistent with full stops in captions - the "humping it" caption has one while the "gig 'em" caption doesn't yet both seem to be incomplete sentences to me.
  • "Humping it" is not a verb in this case, but an adjective. Ergo, it is an incomplete sentence and does not require punctuation
  • Same with the "Flag room" caption.
  • No verb=no sentence
  • Could you list the "Muster" citations in numerical order as per all other citations?
  • done
  • "...the dorms .." little informal - stick with dormitories.
  • fixed
  • I assume RAggies is supposed to have two capitalised letters.
  • It is.
  • "The Texas A&M mascot, now a purebred American collie." - I think "currently a ..." would make more sense.
  • just removed "now"
  • Not sure you really need to link choir or buses...
  • I don't think it hurts
  • Compromise: I unlinked "bus"; choir can stay or go, it may have some relevance. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Texas Longhorns fans respond by saying t.u. stands for "The University"." not cited.
  • removed
  • Is it Yell Leader or Yell leader? The caption has "yell leader"...
  • Technically it can be both, much like "President" or "president"
  • Ref 59 is dead. I haven't time to check the others... Since a lot of them have old retrieval dates (many from 2007), I suggest you check them all.
  • Couldn't find any others, but that ref was redundant anyway.
  • To confirm, the link checker shows that there are no more dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— BQZip01 — talk 03:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabomb87 stole the words right out of my mouth. just a few seconds too late.Oldag07 (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although these may not be correctable, there are two disambiguation links. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, these seems to be necessary. Oldag07 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Texas_Aggie_terms&oldid=1126721388"