Talk:Virginia Tech

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Virginia (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Universities (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Atlantic Coast Conference (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atlantic Coast Conference, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Atlantic Coast Conference articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Glass (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glass, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of glass on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Virginia Tech:

Outstanding work for Virginia Tech and related articles:

  • Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
    • Substantially expand Academics section
    • Move alumni to separate subpage?
    • Find references
    • Please expand athletics at Virginia Tech
    • Move athletics section to Virginia Tech Hokies, this article has grown too large and details on athletics should be migrated there.
    • Expand history - there's more to the school than what our name is
    • Edit and "objectively" point to the April 16th info. There's more to Tech than the Tragedy.
    • Change beginning campus references - Blacksburg is main campus which campus page correctly mentions
  • Please see Talk:Virginia Tech campus for tasks related to the campus page
  • Please see Talk:Virginia Tech Hokies for tasks related to the athletics section


Please feel free to add other VT-related tasks or expand any of the above and add a link from the talk page of any related article

Why is Morva a VT item? It DIDN'T happen on campus, didn't involve students, etc.? I suggest this to-do item be removed. (Possum4all (talk) 06:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

Image choice[edit]

Please compare these two images:

VirginiaTechCampusBridge.jpg
Virginiatech-bridge-over-mall.JPG

I contend that the bottom one is brighter, has a better view of the VT logo, shows the Hokie stone better, focuses more on the subject of the building than the foreground of the pavement, and in general is a better choice for this article.HokieRNB (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with the fact that it shows the hokie stone better but it looks washed out and unprofessional. I have cropped the other image so that it shows the hokie stone better and focuses more on the bridge. I also have added a better lit picture that I have that I think is more professional looking. Let me know what you think:

cropped version
alternative, brighter version

Don't take this the wrong way, but they all look crooked. I'd use the "level" tool in Photoshop or Gimp to crop them correctly. (Possum4all (talk) 06:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

Academics[edit]

Great job whoever just expanded the academics section. It's just what we needed. Chuy1530 (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Art's Initiative[edit]

Would the art initiatives bit that was recently reverted due to being a blatant copy and paste be worthy of being in the article if it were rewritten? I'd be willing to rewrite it so that it isn't a copyright issue but only if it's deemed appropriate for the article. Chuy1530 (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: references should read "Virginia Tech"[edit]

I move that in other wiki pages that reference this page the link should read "Virginia Tech" not "Virginia Polytechnic Institute". "Virginia Tech" is one of the university's official names and is by far the most common name. It's even on the letterhead. SnappingTurtle (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

go for it --Buridan (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Weight of 2007 massacre[edit]

Please understand that I don't mean to be obsessed with tragic events here, but I do think that mentioning the Virginia Tech massacre only as a 'see also' in this page is probably downplaying its significance too much. Especially given that readers unfamiliar with the subject will take some time to recognise that 'Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University' is in fact the same institution commonly referred to as 'Virginia Tech', the lack of any mention in the text may leave people unsure whether they are on the right page. Would it not be worth adding a one sentence mention in the 'History' section with a quick link? Something like "On 16 April 2007, 32 students and members of staff were shot dead and many others wounded by a student in the deadliest shooting incident by a single gunman in United States history." (or possibly shorter) Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree. It is obviously (however unsavoury it may be) something that is tied with the university. It does need to be referenced in the intro and more directly in the history summary. This has precedent as evidenced by the Columbine High School page. It can't simply not be mentioned beyond the reference link. No one intends to be hurtful, but Wikpeadia shouldn't censor itself for the sake of political correctness. If no one has any better suggestions I will do so later. Syferus (talk) 11:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
It used to have a subsection under History that directed readers to the main article, but it seems that an IP editor removed it diff. I will add it back. --Dynaflow babble 00:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely agree the shootings do not have enough weight. Listing the massacre as the final "See Also" is burying it way too much. I think it needs to be a couple sentences in the history summary, with a link, at the very least. Otto1970 (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I came here looking for the massacre, I must admit, I doubted for a second if it was a different V-tech, since the word death isn't even mentioned in the article. I think it's cool that some people can baw so much, that the rational people just censor the whole thing to shut them up for good. But I also think it would be smart to start discussing how many shootings/deaths are necessary for them to make it into this page. Kind of, since all this is bound to happen again, why not set right here right now, how many shootings have to take place before they are acknowledged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.50.217.212 (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's right there in the article: "In 2007, the school and campus received international attention as the site of the Virginia Tech massacre, which was the deadliest peacetime shooting incident by a single gunman in United States history, on or off of a school campus." HokieRNB 01:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

A new bizarre episode involving violent death -- include or not?[edit]

When I saw this anonymous edit, I assumed it was typical bullshit vandalism. Indeed, another anon editor removed it almost immediately as an "inaccuracy." Just to make sure all my ducks were in a row before leaving the first anon a {{uw-error1}}, I checked the Collegiate Times, and to my surprise found that it seems the first IP editor was substantially correct.
Naturally, other editors in the grip of WP:RECENTISM will want to add this incident to the article, perhaps, as the first person to attempt the addition did, link it implicitly with the Cho incident. There are a lot of good reasons this new murder should not be included in the article for the time being and should not be added in the future unless it ends up having some sort of earth-shattering, direction-changing impact on the institution itself. For a precedent, and a detailed discussion of the aforementioned good reasons to leave this kind of thing out, see Talk:St. Mark's College (University of Adelaide)/RfC: Should a murder be included in a college's article (link to last revision before page was courtesy-blanked). --Dynaflow babble 09:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that it's necessary. Why is it relevant at all on this page? His bio would be the best place, right? Would the top-most Army page get updated? I think not. Why this page? (Possum4all (talk) 06:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

Research Computing[edit]

I'm not really sure how the editing goes, but while doing some work for my resume I found some more information on the newest super computer from the CHECS(Center for High End Computing) site.

http://www.checs.eng.vt.edu/

http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/story.php?relyear=2008&itemno=745 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.82.117.165 (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

don't know who killed the research computing bit, but it is very important for a section of the audience and key to virginia tech's reputation in many fields. --Buridan (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion[edit]

  • Propose that Virginia Tech Hampton Roads Center be merged here. The material would usefull expand the section here on that center, but it's not enough for an article of its own, at the moment anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - There's not really a much information written about it. A quick searcg via google shows it being mentioned, but no substantial writeups that would indicate a separate article would be justified. -- Whpq (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Major Major Nidal Malik Hasan[edit]

The article has nothing about the fact that the Major Nidal Malik Hasan studied in this instituition.Agre22 (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

Why is this relevant to the institution's wikipedia page? It can simply be reflected in his bio. It's not relevant with respect to the institutional history and academic mission. Nor does it have a place on the page and doesn't deserve it's own callout. (Possum4all (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

I concur, but I think it would be appropriate to include it in an expansion of the "alumni" section. I went to Texas A&M and we made sure to include Wen Ho Lee, despite his notorious past, as he was notable. — BQZip01 — talk 18:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Math Emporium[edit]

I'm somewhat surprised that this article makes no mention of the university's "Math Emporium". It's been open since 1997, and is part of nearly every undergraduate's experience there. 198.82.17.209 (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done While there is zero coverage coming up in newspapers and magazines, its actually received a lot of coverage in books, particularly those on the politics and administration of education. A paragraph has been added.--RadioFan (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

December 8, 2011 Event[edit]

Will someone please keep this up to date as this event progresses. If it becomes an extremely major event, this will need to be expanded. I don't get much information from the Midwest. Thank you. Sweet Pea 1981 (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

section on recent violence at Tech?[edit]

I dont know where/how it would fit on their wiki page, but should something be put in the article about all of the recent violence directly or indirectly involving tech? It would include the Virginia Tech Massacre, the actions of William Morva in 2006, the shootings today (Dec 8, 2011), the VT students executed in Jefferson Forest, the VT Student stabbed to death and decapitated on campus, and that the shooter from the Fort Hood shooting was an alum. Opinion?

Once a Hokie, always a Hokie... Jwalte04 (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If there has been a lot of violence at the school, this would definately warrent a seperate section. As stated before, as I am in the Midwest, I am not aware of everything going on there unless it is a major news story. I'm only aware of the massacre and the event today. Items to include in the section would be events and what the university is doing to prevent this from happening in the future. Sweet Pea 1981 (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
News story here. Reportedly two people killed today.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
VT.edu's website says: "Police investigating shootings on campus; shooter's status unknown. (Posted: 1:49 p.m.) Shortly after noon today, a Virginia Tech police officer stopped a vehicle on campus during a routine traffic stop in the Coliseum parking lot near McComas Hall. During the traffic stop. the officer was shot and killed. There were witnesses to this shooting. Witnesses reported to police the shooter fled on foot heading toward the Cage, a parking lot near Duck Pond Drive. At that parking lot, a second person was found. That person is also deceased. Several law enforcement agencies have responded to assist. Virginia State Police has been requested to take lead in the investigation. The status of the shooter is unknown. The campus community should continue to shelter in place and visitors should not come to campus."

Still breaking news.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The dead person in the parking lot is reportedly the alleged shooter.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 22:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Less breaking news now, it's looking more and more like a murder-suicide and random act of violence.--Possum4all (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Saying that there is "a lot of violence" is not supported by Clery act data. Virginia Tech isn't even the highest in the Commonwealth regarding reported violence. You need to qualify your assertion that there's "a lot" of violence with some sort of link or report. --198.82.10.203 (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Userspace draft[edit]

This might be something best put into a userspace draft for now, to avoid recentism. If it becomes noteworthy the draft can be moved to the mainspace, if it doesn't the important sections can be added to this article. I'd do it, but I'm busy preparing for finals. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

December 8, 2011[edit]

According to reports, Virginia State Police responded to Virginia Tech in reference to a shooting in reference to a Virginia Tech police officer being shot and killed while on a traffic stop at the Cassell Coliseum parking lot on Spring Road. Virginia Tech police requested that the Virginia State Police assume primary responsibility for the investigation of the incident.

The individual fled that crime scene in the direction of a second crime scene a quarter of a mile away, where a male body was found at that location with a gunshot wound.[1] --Possum4all (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

In a follow-up press conference, officials said that the Virginia Tech Alert System was very helpful and worked as expected. A total of 6 alerts were sent throughout the day, the first was issued at 12:37pm. Dr. Charles Steger, Virginia Tech President, said the system "worked extremely well." [2] --Possum4all (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Call for discussion/consensus on adding shooting incidents to this page[edit]

There seems to be quite a few edit adding and removing the 2007 and 2011 shooting incidents. I recommend that we come to a consensus on whether or not the incidents should be reference. In so much as the University of Texas, Kent State, Columbine High School and others that have had major incidents have a reference to the incident on that schools wiki page as well as a separate, more in depth page for the incident. Since wiki is a place to look for information, I feel that both VT incidents should be included/summarized on the main page and then expanded on a separate page. To not include them seems to violate the NPOV ideal. Thanks, chris W4chris (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't be on this page nor does it deserves it's own page as it's an on-going news item -- and a person-on-person random act of violence. Please see Notability. --Possum4all (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that the December 2011 incident has the same long term notability as the 2007 incident. It would be strange for this article to make no mention at all of the 2007 incident, and it might look like an attempt to airbrush it out.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying to remove the 2007 entry. But the 2011 entry is a murder-suicide... a crime. Crimes happen all the time on campuses around the country. They don't show up on the main pages on wikipedia as unique entries. It doesn't deserve a place on this page nor it's own unique article. Notability is at play here. --Possum4all (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Had it not been for the 2007 incident, the 2011 incident would not have received nearly as much coverage. It would be best to see how the coverage of the 2011 incident settles down in the next few days. It is probably not worth a mention in this article, or a separate article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I could buy that the 2011 incident does not meet notability but the 2007 shooting definitely does and need to be summarized. W4chris (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I added a summary and was disappointed to see it removed here. The current wording is poor and could do with some tidying up.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The 2007 incident has been mentioned in this article and wikilinked to the dedicated Virginia Tech massacre article which covers the subject extensively. That has served the Virginia Tech article well for years and last week's incident didn't create a need for more explanation of the 2007 incident. The current wording is excellent. If you look back over the article's history you'll find that the sentence was worded carefully (e.g. "the site of") to keep to the focus on the subject of this article, the university. Expanding this information into a paragraph or especially into its own section is unnecessary and takes the focus this well written article has. If there were no dedicated article on the subject I'd be all for expanding information here, but there is a dedicated article and no need to duplicate so many details here. Readers need to know that this happened but this article is about the university, not the 2007 incident, let's not take the focus away.--RadioFan (talk) 12:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this is logical and parallels entries for other academic institutions. --Possum4all (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Obvious Bias[edit]

This article has been quite clearly doctored in order to remove reference to the 2007 Seung-Hui Cho shooting, arguably (and somewhat unfortunately) the most notable aspect of the entire university. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a result of university PR, but a single sentence at the bottom of the History section and a link to the main article hidden at the bottom is quite simply an embarrassment. It at the very least deserves its own subsection (with a subheading link to the main article), as well as some impartial editors, rather than the VT affiliates currently policing the article and reverting changes under bogus citations of notability and quality. 82.14.195.61 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC).

This is pretty much what I thought. There almost seems to be an embarrassment about mentioning the 2007 incident, particularly when compared to articles like Columbine High School and University of Texas at Austin, which contain clear summaries of the shooting incidents. There is a lack of due weight in the current wording.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I concur and I endorse your decision to change the wording. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
This article is about the university, not the 2007 incident. It is absolutely appropriate to summarize the 2007 incident in the history section but a subsection is not necessary. The subject is already well covered in the article dedicated to the subject there is no need to extend coverage here. Additionally, accusation of bias is serious and shouldn't be tossed about based solely on superficial observation. --RadioFan (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I disagree that a subsection is not necessary. The shooting incident at VT was of a large enough magnitude that it defines the University and Wikipedia should not belittle its influence. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I do agree with RadioFan that a single sentence doesn't deserve a section; however, I believe the section should be slightly expanded so it can stand alone. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
On reflection, I don't think it needs a section either, but something more like the short paragraph in University_of_Texas_at_Austin#Recent_history.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The focus here should be on content not size. What specific content is missing from the information on the 2007 incident? What needs to be added?--RadioFan (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe the identity of the shooter should be included, a sentence on the reaction should be included, and information on the failure of VT to notify it's students properly should be included. I don't believe that the fine should be included as I believe that would give undue weight to the subject. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Whether Tech failed to properly notify its students is a matter of opinion, not something that should be claimed as factual. Obviously, the Obama administration thinks that there was a delay, but Tech disagrees with that assessment. Timely warnings meant something different before April 16, 2007. The official Cleary Act handbook from the government gives samples of Cleary "timely warnings" that are two days and six days after the incidents in question. That Virginia Tech should have sent out a warning in under two hours is a matter of opinion, not something that should be referred to as a "failure". --B (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The identity of the shooter is included in the dedicated article. I dont see how it would improve the article on the university. The notification controversy is also well covered and as B notes, is subjective and not appropriate for a summary as a result. It's better covered in the dedicated article.--RadioFan (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I might be missing something, but it looks like it appears in two places.... History and the See Also reference at the bottom of the page. The word "failure" is certainly up for debate, Ryan, and you might want to find a more objective word to communicate the debate about culpability. --Possum4all (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move: → Virginia Tech[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. We have consensus that this name is overwhelmingly the most common way of referring to the institution. Cúchullain t/c 16:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)



Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityVirginia Tech – Although it might sound like a sports-oriented nickname, "Virginia Tech" is in fact the way this school is referred to in all but the most legalistic contexts. On their website or on a typical press release, the proposed form is used everywhere except in the fine print copyright notice. "Virginia Tech" is by far the most common name for this subject on Google Books, according to this ngram. It is also the search term our readers are most likely to use, according to Google Trends. Kauffner (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Supporting material[edit]

  • Policy: “Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." (WP:COMMONNAME)
Organization Virginia Polytechnic Institute Virginia Tech URLs
Highbeam
News stories compiled for the last two years
1,477 17,038 http://www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm=%22Virginia+Polytechnic+Institute%22
http://www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm=%22Virginia+Tech%22
Chronicle of Higher Education
Past year
41 1,050

"Virginia Polytechnic Institute" site:chronicle.com
"Virginia Tech" site:chronicle.com

Virginian-Pilot 0 7 "Virginia Polytechnic Institute" site:pilotonline.com
"Virginia Tech" site:pilotonline.com
Richmond Times-Dispatch 0 3 "Virginia Polytechnic Institue" site:www.timesdispatch.com
"Virginia Tech" site:www.timesdispatch.com
New York Times
Past year
15 145 "Virginia Polytechnic Institute" site:www.nytimes.com
"Virginia Tech" site:www.nytimes.com

Although I filtered for news articles only, the Highbeam results for "Virginia Polytechnic Institute" are almost entirely from scientific journals. The VPI hits on the Chronicle of Higher Education site are for employment ads. The New York Times VPI results are not for actual news stories either, but rather an artifact of their "E-mail Alert" software. Kauffner (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • Support Oppose. Very well researched. More than needed... Changing to oppose in deference to those who actually care. Apteva (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I also applaud your research, but we include more than just what is used popularly. [[WP:Article titles|"[E]ditors choose among [article titles] by considering several principles: the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles, precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable." Additionally, this is a policy, so all points must be met or balanced, not solely those mentioned within the subheading of WP:COMMONNAME. Given that Wikipedia:UNIGUIDE#College_and_university_articles also supports this "Colleges and universities should always be named using the common (not necessarily official) name of the institution. This can often be determined by looking at current branding of a university via their website, published documents, and advertisements.", I can see no reason to oppose. The official name should redirect to this article and the full name should be bolded in the lead. Buffs (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I have little to add here, having requested Kauffner draw up one of his meticulously researched RMs for the article; he didn't disappoint. As someone with a bunch of Hokie family members, I can testify that the official name of the school is likely to draw a quizzical stare from just about anyone; it's practically trivia at this point. --BDD (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as an example we have an article on Rutgers University and not the full title 'Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.' Across Wikipedia, there are dozens of similar examples of using the common name and not the official name. Hot Stop (Edits) 12:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, as long as you don't make me change my resume or diploma. HokieRNB 20:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongest Oppose Possible: VT's official name is in fact "Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University", over the years it was reduced (in nickname) to just "Virginia Tech". It's like WVU or UVA, they are still officiall called West Virginia University and University of Virginia respectively even though they are commonly called WVU or UVA (respectively). Virginia Tech's name is "Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University" and any change would open up college pages to be renamed to their "nicknames". This should go before an RfC as well since it is wide-encompassing. - NeutralhomerTalk • 23:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

ANI[edit]

I have taken this issue to ANI for a community-wide decision as the move is against naming convensions. - NeutralhomerTalk • 16:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The move was dictated by consensus and seems supported by WP:COMMONNAME. GiantSnowman 16:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Then shall we rename West Virginia University to "WVU"? Syracuse University to "Syracuse"? Which college would get rights to "FSU"? Which Miami would get "Miami", the city, the college in Florida or the college in Ohio? Should Kansas State University be renamed to "K-State"? Using COMMONNAME, the answer to all these, would be yes, yes, good question, the city, and yes. We don't use COMMONNAME when it comes to official names and whether anyone wants to admit it or not, the official name of Virginia Tech is and always will be Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. - NeutralhomerTalk • 17:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately WP:OFFICIALNAME is not a policy. As stated, feel free to open a new RM and state your case there. GiantSnowman 17:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • If someone wants to contest the move, the proper forum is WP:Move_review. However, I don't see any basis to contest this decision. Kauffner (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Coming late to this discussion, while I agree that this isn't ANI material, the discussion deserves a wider audience and more comprehensive input. To cite a directly comparable instance, my alma mater is the Georgia Institute of Technology. While it's referred to as Georgia Tech almost exclusively, I'm not aware of any support for a bold move of the primary title to Georgia Tech, nor has the California Institute of Technology been moved to Caltech, as it is invariably called, and I would oppose a move for either. The seal of the university, prominently displayed, spells out the full name. I suggest that the bold move be undone;Acroterion (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks Acroterion, you have a better way of getting a point across than I...especially at this point. - NeutralhomerTalk • 17:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
      • My chief point is that this was a bold move based on a very narrow input: I would prefer that it first be reverted and reviewed via an RfC rather than moved on the opinion of four editors.MR is a procedural review, and the issue here is one of editorial discretion rather than procedure. Acroterion (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'll try to explain the close in a bit more detail. First off, as was noted in the discussion, the relevant section at WP:AT says "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Additionally, as was also indicated, the college-specific guideline WP:UNIGUIDE says, "Colleges and universities should always be named using the common (not necessarily official) name of the institution" (emphasis mine). In this case, by all evidence, "Virginia Tech" is overwhelmingly the most common way of referring to the university in the sources, and no one appears to dispute that. There are other examples of college articles that use a non-official name when something else is overwhelmingly more common, such Ohio State University, Florida A&M University, and Rutgers University. As such, the move was supported by policy, practice, and the local consensus in the discussion.
I'm sympathetic to the wish there had been more input, but there's no set amount of input an RM needs, and the fact is this had drawn almost no new comments for two and a half weeks. Especially considering the strength of the evidence, I stand by my reading of the consensus.
As for the potential of this to affect other moves, I don't see that as an adequate reason to avoid an otherwise convincing move. As an aside, I really don't see it happening, anyway. I tend to doubt that, for instance, West Virginia University is really overwhelmingly better known as "WVU", and in many such cases the nicknames will fail other key naming criteria.--Cúchullain t/c 20:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that Wikipedia could use a consensus-driven policy on the naming of colleges and universities. Until now, the naming has been derived from some version of the "official" name, and not "Virginia Tech," "Penn State," "Ohio State,"UMass," etc. The major exception, as pointed out above, is Rutgers, which is far preferable to its official title. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University could be argued to be a similar mouthful, but I would suggest that ample precedent exists with respect to all of the Techs, States, and A&Ms, of which Virginia Tech is now an outlier in the naming convention field. Rather than argue it at RM, which to me is a place to argue procedure (though I stand by the assertion that too few opinions have been solicited: we routinely relist AfDs to get broader consensus, for instance)., I would prefer that it be discussed here or as an RfC. I don't see "local consensus" as sufficient to overturn a de facto convention for the States and Techs without much more input from the community.
A bit of history: when I was looking at colleges in the mid-1970s, Virginia Tech was called VPI: the change to Virginia Tech was part of a rebranding campaign by the university, who found VPI to be a bit vanilla, not without reason, and "Poly" wasn't in the running. The Virginia Tech name has taken root for good as a shorthand, which is fine.
Most of time, I'm arguing in favor of WP:COMMONNAME: in fact, this is probably the first time that I haven't, and I think this points up a significant exception to the policy that has existed without notice until now. I make an analogy to WP:ENGVAR: we don't change between varieties of English without good cause: I see no compelling reason to alter an informal naming convention in this instance either. At some risk of an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, if there is a "convincing argument" for this, then the argument is equally convincing for all the other Tech and State universities, which I suspect would be opposed. I haven't seen an article about the Sandusky affair that gave more than a nod to "Pennsylvania State University," for instance. I seem to recall an extremely contentious discussion about the "The" in that case, but I don't think a rename to Penn State was ever seriously considered. Similar issues have come up concerning Ohio State. Virtually all articles on universities use the title/lede format format "Northern North Carolina State University, also known as Northern State ..." with a redirect from the informal name. Acroterion (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The biggest thing I take from this is that no one is disputing the fact that Virginia Tech is the most common name. I reiterate that common names are preferable per both the the WP:AT policy and the college guideline WP:UNIGUIDE, as well as in practice. It's simply not true that articles on colleges always use the "official" name; as was pointed out in the initial discussion, there are plenty of exceptions when something else is overwhelmingly more common. For example, it's Ohio State University, not "The Ohio State University", Pennsylvania State University, not "The Pennsylvania State University", Florida A&M University, not "Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University", Louisiana State University, not "Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College", and Rutgers University, not "Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey". As such, the local consensus at this move request was in line with both policy and practice.
Taking this into consideration, I don't see any call to reverse the move unless it's by either another move request or it's overturned, for example by move review. I'll accept any outcome of a review, of course, but I continue to stand by my original decision.Cúchullain t/c 04:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on the topic at hand but I am disappointed that no one has bothered to notify the Wikiproject most concerned with this specific article and the broader topic of college/university naming conventions, especially when the initial RM was initiated. If this discussion proceeds to an RfC or other more formal arena, please notify WP:UNI so its members can participate. ElKevbo (talk) 07:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Precedence and comparison[edit]

Although I initially weighed in with a support !vote, now that I've had the chance to look a little further, I'm questioning whether this was the right move. Here is a brief list of comparable articles that should be considered:

Does Virginia Tech need to be the only outlier among polytechnic institutes? HokieRNB 14:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

  • It's not about numbers alone. I'm not sure why you think it would be related to "instincts". And it's not because they sound similar. It's not a rhyming game. It's about consistency. Alike articles should be named in alike ways. The list above reflects larger (4000 or more students) polytechnic institutes in the United States, of which Virginia Tech is one of the largest and most well-known. Florida Tech is probably not the best and most clear example; Georgia Tech and Caltech would be better. ("Georgia Tech" shows up 1000 to 1 over "Georgia Institute of Technology" in your search example; "Caltech" is 3 to 2 over "California Institute of Technology".) I'm not suggesting that the Virginia Tech article shouldn't ultimately be renamed, I'm suggesting that the move was done prematurely without including needed input from a much larger community to gain consensus about how similar schools should be named. HokieRNB 20:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • As per RNB the results show this result is out of line. As far as WP:COMMONNAME goes my increasing observation is that it is either badly written, or not read when cited, or both. We keep on seeing RM discussions that read/interpret the WP:COMMONNAME guideline as WP:STREETNAME WP:TABLOIDNAME WP:NICKNAME. At the moment the guideline only says "Article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic" which rules out WP:VULGARNAME WP:PEDANTICNAME but doesn't tell Users whether en.wp wants to be an encyclopedia or USA Today. Even though in this case Google Books and Highbeam were used, not press, the result is a non-encyclopedic one. Which isn't anyone's fault, but is the result. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Upon further reflection, I believe that WP:COMMONNAME would support a move to Virginia Polytechnic Institute (dropping the "and State University" part of the title), but the overriding guideline should dictate that it be named consistently with other similar polytechnic institutes. How soon is too soon to ask for such a move? HokieRNB 02:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
On the question of time I think you'd only need agreement of at least 3 people on this talk page to enter an immediate RM, given the small sample on the RM itself. I'll be the third if you get a second. However Virginia Polytechnic Institute was the old name pre-War, I doubt it'd get much support. The best non-colloquial alternative is back to where the article was. More talk/thought is probably necessary. Opening an RfC on Talk:Florida Institute of Technology might be a better way to proceed. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
There's no set period of time, or a specific number of users in "agreement", for a new RM, though usually some amount of wait time is expected. And I'd recommend against opening an RfC at Florida Institute of Technology unless you want to make some change at that article.Cúchullain t/c 03:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Struck through above, per Cúchullain. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I note that WP:NICKNAME leads to a page on username policy that is unrelated to article titling. IMO, we should use a name that might be given in a formal context like the New York Times or Chronicles of the Higher Education. This is not something that can be determined by analogy-based reasoning. The school changed its short form name from VPI to Virginia Tech around 2000. "Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University" was always just a lawyers' name. So even someone who went to the school in the 1990s might not have a sense of the current nomenclature. Kauffner (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Few editors like consistency in article titles as much as I do, but Kauffner is right. You can't just change names through analogy; that's WP:OTHERSTUFF applied to RM. If any of those other schools use their nicknames as consistency as Virginia Tech, it may be appropriate to rename them, but as evidence presented in the RM demonstrates, "Virginia Tech" is much more than an athletic nickname, which many of the above nicknames and abbreviations are. I wonder if the school itself would use the nickname as consistently as it does if its official name weren't so unwieldy, e.g., if it were Virginia Institute of Technology. But that's just speculation. As it stands, official usage, scholarly usage, journalistic usage, and common usage all agree on "Virginia Tech" in this case. Only a zealousness for official names completely without basis in policy would support the full name—that, or a misunderstanding of the situation, such as mistaking "Virginia Tech" for a purely athletic moniker. I'm happy with this RM being used as a precedent for other schools, but only when usage makes those moves prudent to begin with. --BDD (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

First SMC to Admit Women[edit]

The article claims VT was the first college in the nation to admit women into its Corps of Cadets. The article gives no source for this and VT's own website states: "In 1973 Virginia Tech was among the first Corps of Cadets in the nation to enroll women, assigning them to L Squadron." Nowhere does it say it was the first. On the other hand, here is an artcile that specifically states North Georgia College was the first SMC to admit women. http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1100&context=eps_diss . Todd Gallagher (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd take either source as definitive to identify VT or NGC as solely "first", since both claim 1973 and aren't more specific than the year. Without a source offering a dated policy announcement, "among the first" is probably as close as we should get. VT hawkeyetalk to me 00:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Location of admissions office[edit]

Another editor and I disagree whether the following sentence merits inclusion in this article: "The Office of Undergraduate Admissions is located in the Visitor and Undergraduate Admissions Center." Can someone else please weigh in? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

List of peer institutions[edit]

Another editor and I disagree about the inclusion of a list of peer institutions in this article. The material in question:

Benchmark Institutions[edit]

Through a series of analyses and negotiations that occur about once every ten years, the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV) approves a group of peers comparable to each Virginia college and university against which to benchmark faculty salaries. The target for each Virginia institution's overall faculty salary average is the 60th percentile of the average salaries of its peers. Criteria such as enrollments, academic program offerings and degrees awarded, research funding, and the classification of institutions of higher education developed by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education are used in the analysis to identify comparable peer institutions.[3]

Virginia Tech's Benchmark Institutions[4]
  • University of California, Berkeley
  • University of California, Davis
  • University of Colorado, Boulder
  • Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.
  • University of Florida, Gainesville
  • University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
  • Iowa State University, Ames
  • University of Maryland, College Park
  • University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
  • Michigan State University, East Lansing
  • University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
  • University of Missouri, Columbia
  • North Carolina State University, Raleigh
  • The Ohio State University, Columbus
  • Pennsylvania State University, University Park
  • University of Pittsburgh
  • Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind.
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick
  • State University of New York at Buffalo
  • University of Southern California, Los Angeles
  • Stony Brook University, State University of New York
  • Texas A&M University, College Station
  • University of Texas at Austin
  • University of Washington, Seattle
  • University of Wisconsin, Madison

Can someone else please offer an opinion on the suitability of this material for this article? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Information about men's basketball coaching staff[edit]

Another editor and I disagree about the inclusion of two paragraphs of material about the new men's basketball coach and his staff. The material in question:

In March 2014, Virginia Tech Director of Athletics Whit Babcock announced the hiring of Buzz Williams as the Hokies' new head men's basketball coach. Williams spent the previous six seasons as the head coach at Marquette University, where he compiled a 139-69 record and led the Golden Eagles to five NCAA appearances, including a trip to the regional finals in the 2012-13 season, the same season that the team won the Big East Conference's regular season title. During Williams's tenure, Marquette tallied a 69-39 record in the Big East Conference, and six Marquette players made it to the NBA.[5]

In July 2014, Williams announced his staff. Isaac Chew, Steve Roccaforte, and Jamie McNeilly were named assistant coaches. Jeff Reynolds was named the director of men’s basketball operations. Devin Johnson will serve as the director of player personnel for men’s basketball, and Steve Thomas as the director of student-athlete development. Lyle Wolf joined the staff as the assistant to the head coach, and Ernest Eugene was hired as assistant athletics director for sports medicine and will serve as the team athletic trainer.[6]

Can others please offer opinions on the inclusion of this material in this article? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Virginia Tech Website http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2011/12/120811-vtnews-statepolice-statement.html |url= missing title (help). 
  2. ^ Roanoke Times. Dec. 9, 2011 http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/302164 |url= missing title (help).  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ "Peer Institutions and Comparisons". Virginia Tech Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness. Retrieved May 1, 2014. 
  4. ^ "Peer Institutions and Comparisons, SCHEV-Approved Peers". Virginia Tech Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness. Retrieved May 1, 2014. 
  5. ^ "Buzz Williams named new Hokie coach". HokieSports.com. Retrieved July 28, 2014. 
  6. ^ "Hokies announce men's basketball staff". HokieSports.com. Retrieved July 28, 2014.