Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Texas Tech University

Click here to start a new discussion thread

Priority ratings

The priority ratings to include when adding an article to the project are:

• Top
• High
• Mid
• Low

We need to decide which level belongs to which type of article. Obviously the main article is top. What about the main athletics articles (football, basketball, etc.)? Traditions? Coaches? Athletes? Alums? →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO it should go something like this:

Top Priority

• Texas Tech University
• Texas Tech Health Sciences Center
• Angelo State University
• Texas Tech University System
• Texas Tech Red Raiders

High Priority

• Red Raiders Football Team (possibly even top priority)
• Red Raiders Mens Basketball Team
• All of TTU's individual colleges and schools

Mid Priority

• Most Coaches. *Bob Knight, Mike Leach, and Marsha Sharp probably rate 'high'.
• Notable People List
• Traditions
• Mascots
• Specific athletes. *Harrell and Crabtree probably rate 'high' priority due to their national visibility and possible Heisman candidacies. Welker and Zach Thomas too. Zach was wearing a TTU shirt while lifting weights on "Hard Knocks". Amendola might even fall somewhere between medium and high due to his visibility on "Hard Knocks" and making the Cowboys practice squad. As a rule, I'd say 'high' priority athletes are ones whose names are fairly well known outside of Texas.

It may not be PC to rate womens basketball, baseball, volleyball, etc below football and mens basketball, but in reality there's little debate. Football probably finances all the other sports except mens basketball. I don't think mens basketball generates a ton of money, but it can at least pay for itself.--Elred (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines. Perhaps, for Wikipedia purposes, we should just put all athletics articles at High. I think a sliding scale for individuals is appropriate and should be based on two things: national visibility and the impact they had a Tech. →Wordbuilder (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's what I came up with. Let me know what you think. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me.--Elred (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I made some changes to this. Here are some of the criteria I used.--Elred (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Top Priority - this is just for the actual universities, the system, and the Red Raiders 'umbrella'.
2. High Priority - this is for prominent current TTU athletes (Crabtree, Harrell, etc), nationally recognized celebrities/journalists, current politicians, retired/deceased politicians of lasting prominence outside of the region, TTU alumni currently playing prominent roles (all-star, pro-bowl, etc) in professional sports (Welker, Zach Thomas, etc.), the individual academic units (colleges), and the individual sports teams (football, baseball, etc.).
3. Mid Priority - almost everything else.

• another blanket criteria that I applied is that a 'high-priority' article should, or would probably, be created by some random user on wikipedia regardless of whether or not we, as TTU boosters, cared about it. IE, someone would create and update the "Wes Welker" page even if we didn't.--Elred (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] That holds true for almost all of the articles for athletes who have graduated. Should they all be rated as High?

• That was more of a criteria for exclusion than the inverse. In other words, if we should rate something high priority it probably wouldn't be a stub currently. Some things that have little relevance to TTU are complete articles, but still have little relevance. --Elred (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of the articles seem to fall right at the edge. For instance, Emily Jones. I can see why she could be rated Mid (e.g., article not created or edited by anyone outside of the project). I can also see why she could be rated High (e.g., reporter for Big 12 and Texas pro games on FSN and anchor of Big 12 Showcase gives her a presence that is more than regional). It's really not a big deal just as long as no one takes a change too seriously. →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• True, but I was trying to use relativity as best as possible for the categories. I couldn't justify Emily Jones being rated as equivalent importance with Rawls College of Business or Red Raiders Football or a current US Congressman. She's got a pretty cool career, but it's not terribly important. Also, if Crabtree goes into the NFL next year, is drafted top 5, and becomes an impact player, he'd remain 'high-importance' in my opinion. On the other hand, if Graham finishes his stellar TTU career and doesn't make it in the NFL (and thus becomes an assistant high school coach somewhere), he'll drop to 'mid'.--Elred (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• I do agree that if someone does well at Tech but fails to turn it into something in the long run, then the rating should drop. However, you dropped Dave Parks from High to Mid, even though he was a #1 NFL draft pick, was selected for three Pro Bowls (which was one of your own criteria), and was inducted into the Football Hall of Fame. I know he's retired now, but those things should qualify him for a High rating regardless of how much time passes. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• I dunno. It's not that big of a deal to me either way. Maybe we should rank things like the individual colleges and the sports (football, basketball, etc.) as top-priority. The problem isn't Dave Parks being 'high' priority, but it's his priority in comparison to many things that are exponentially more relevant. Despite his accomplishments, I can't justify to myself that his article rates as 'highly relevant' to TTU. Welker and Zach Thomas are currently in the news (and on ESPN) almost daily and I'm pretty sure their pages get more traffic than Parks' does. The criteria I laid out aren't perfect by any means. A lot of it is just what feels right. Honestly, when I was moving things around I had to click on his page to learn 'who he is'. I feel that, in the process of running the gauntlet that you and I have run, we're probably among the top 1% of 'people who know a bunch of junk about TTU'. That said, I didn't know about Parks and that gives me (I believe) a fairly reasonable perspective on his current visibility/priority level. However, it doesn't really matter to me if you feel strongly about it.--Elred (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think current visibility should be secondary to overall accomplishment. We might be overthinking this. The list is just a set of guidelines and not rules. Let's just do our best to get things ranked. If we disagree, it's probably only going to be by one degree (High vs. Mid, Mid vs. Low) and not that big of deal. →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Academic Signatures on College Pages

Do we want to include the Academic Signatures on the college pages? I was working on the Texas Tech University College of Architecture page today and put up the coat of arms with the academic signature in place of just the university coat of arms. Does everybody agree that this is the direction we want to go, and if so can somebody make sure I uploaded them with the correct information.--MarkRomero (talk) 03:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

We had those things up for a while, but we replaced them with the shield for several reasons. 1) the infobox already says "College of Architecture" (or whatever college) right above it. So it's redundant. 2) Because the text is wide, it makes the shield very small. It looks better with the shield being larger. 3) using the the shield without the text is the most efficient because we can use the same one for every college. Combining all of these factors we decided that using the shield alone is the most effective way to handle this. How you have it now, it says "Texas Tech University College of Architecture" both above an below the shield image. Further, if we are to keep continuity among the college pages we'd have to do this with every one of them (thus creating the redundancy everywhere). I think using the shield the way it was is the most elegant solution. Does that make sense?--Elred (talk) 04:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It does make sense, and that is why I was checking before I went and placed them in all of the college pages. The reason why I placed them there, was that some of the other university's had the signature in their college infoboxes. --MarkRomero (talk) 08:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the change that I made to College of Arch and College of Arts & Sci --MarkRomero (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I'm glad you're working on the Arch page. It's good to have someone with a specific interest in each academic unit working on that page.--Elred (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not actually affiliated with the CoA (other then the fact that I go to Tech). I am an undergrad in the College of Engineering. I was just going down the list of stubs, and arch was the first. --MarkRomero (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Either way. We really should try to work over the engineering and business pages. Those are probably to two highest profile units at the university. I know the college of engineering has been in the news a lot lately. It's a good time for engineers and especially petroleum ones. I think TTU needs to try to become the preeminent school for oil/energy studies. Many of the pieces are already in place.--Elred (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I have made several additions to the Research Center section of the CoE page. I would appreciate it if somebody would review them to make sure everything sounds coherent :). Also I have made a suggestion on the layout of the page in the Talk Page of the CoE. --MarkRomero (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Updated Talk Page Box Template

I have created an updated Talk Page Box template to include the portal box. I have it in a sandbox right now (Template:WikiProject Texas Tech University/Sandbox) for testing, and to make sure everybody wanted a link to the portal on the template. It is attached here: (Snipped By MarkRomero (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC), to avoid putting the project page in the class and importance categories)

--MarkRomero (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for it. I think there are only two links to the portal now and one of those is on project page. Doesn't make sense to have a portal if no one knows about it. →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. The only issue might be the rules about template boxes. I don't know if those are supposed to be standardized or not.--Elred (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I got the idea from the Biography Talk Page Template, so I am assuming it is ok. --MarkRomero (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like someone converted the template and, in so doing, included the portal box. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Awesome....well that settles that. --MarkRomero (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Texas Tech University

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection before December 2008, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 16:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Vote for Wikipedia Release 0.7 Articles

Below are a list of articles that are eligible for nomination for WP 0.7. We should vote on the articles we want (if not all of them) to nominate for WP 0.7.

B-Class Articles

---

Bob Knight (763)
Angelo State University (695)
Gary Blair (596)
William Curry Holden (371)
Waggoner Carr (323)

C-Class Articles

---

Texas Tech Red Raiders (753)
Susan Polgar (689)
Wes Welker (632)
Texas Tech University Goin' Band from Raiderland (581)
Mike Leach (508)
Graham Harrell (503)
Texas Tech University College of Engineering (437)
Sally Kipyego (420)
Texas Tech University traditions (139)
Scott Pelley (Unknown)

--MarkRomero (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the process. How did you know which ones are eligibile for nomination? →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The 1.0 Editorial Team has established a criteria for the WP 0.7 release. Also the reviewers are only interested in articles with a Bot importance score of >700. (The list above does not take the bot scores into account, as I did not have time to compile them now contains bot scores.) --MarkRomero (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on the scores the only ones articles that have a shot are Bob Knight, Angelo State University, Texas Tech Red Raiders and Susan Polgar. If nobody has objections I will nominate these for for inclusion. Also we have until the 20th of October to make revisions to and select the version of the Texas Tech article and any other articles selected. --MarkRomero (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

At 695, does Angelo State have a chance? I'd like to see it included and it just barely missed the 700. I noticed one of the criteria is internal links. I've never looked at other articles to make sure they link to ASU when possible. (I have with Tech, though.) I wonder if the bot will assess again before the deadling. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is close enough to 700 that it has a chance if we can make a convincing argument for its inclusion. Also the bot was using a database dump for August (I think), as the database dump system is currently offline. --MarkRomero (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. We just need to take a look at the articles and fix any obvious flaws. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have submitted Bob Knight and Texas Tech Red Raider, but I am not sure what to put for comments on Angelo State University. --MarkRomero (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Featured image on Commons

I think we have a few pictures on Commons that may fit the featured-image criteria. Here are the guidelines. Here is the gallery. If you see any that you think fit, post the link here and we can discuss. Avoid any that show a statue since some may see them as dirivative. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The picture of the old admin building is cool, but does not meet the criteria of 2M pixels. --00:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkRomero (talk • contribs)

Texas Peer Review

Here is something all UT, A&M, and Tech fans can agree on. Texas just got promoted to GA, is now on a FA run, and it would be nice to have all the input we can get in our peer review. Thanks for the help. Oldag07 (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Howdy! I know i am an aggie, but most people associated with this university are not just Tech fans, but Texans as well. And, making our state look good has got to be somewhat of a priority for us. I have divided the Texas page into 6 parts. Hopefully with more manageable chunks, people will be more willing to copy edit the page. would anybody at this project be willing to copy edit one section of the Texas page? Thanks and gig em.

Talk:Texas#Copyedit_plan Oldag07 (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC for WP:BOOSTER

There is a request for comment about whether or not WP:BOOSTER documents a standard consensus and good practice that all editors and school/college/university articles should follow as an official policy or guideline. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

College Fight Songs

There is a thread on the administrators' noticeboard which may concern editors involved in this WikiProject and may affect the articles Fight, Raiders, Fight and The Matador Song. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Lyrics. CrazyPaco (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:45, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

"Scarlet" vs "red"

There is a current disagreement (primarily between Arverniking (talk · contribs) and MarkRomero (talk · contribs)) regarding whether the official school colors are red and black or scarlet and black.

According to this, the former is dubbed "Texas Tech Red". However, there are plenty of Google hits showing this official color as "scarlet". The way I see it, since scarlet is a shade of red, all scarlet is red but not all red is scarlet. Further "Texas Tech Red" is the exact shade of red/scarlet that is used by the university. The official colors should be listed as "scarlet and black" since it is more precise than "red and black".

Interesting take. I'd want to go with the more general, because it offers more latitude of interpretation. That is to say, scarlet is red, so why not say red and leave it at that? Especially in light of things like Texas Tech Red Raiders and Raider Red (not Texas Tech Scarlet Raiders or Raider Scarlet), this makes even more sense to me, but I have no association with the university -- not sure if that makes me ignorant or just less prone to non-NPOV and COI issues. Either way, I guess it's obvious which way I've started to lean. --King of the Arverni (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

A previous discussion of this issue is here. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I also found a discussion on MarkRomero's talk page. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I wasn't aware of a "current disagreement". Mark Romero and I had a misunderstanding ad have been discussing it at User talk:MarkRomero#Colors. You can see there that I changed all boxes that were "scarlet" to use the hex color found at Scarlet (color). Mark Romero changed them back and I inquired as to a source for his claim. He provided one. I expressed my thanks for having done so and changed "scarlet" references to "TTU Red" per the official source he provided ([1] above). Mark Romero did not object, as far as I can tell. So, is there a disagreement? I thought that the aforementioned source seemed fairly clear on the matter, and in an effort to meet WP:V and WP:NPOV, I was more than happy to add it to the articles. Thanks for the link to an old discussion; I wasn't provided that before. --King of the Arverni (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As you can see by the timestamps on my initial and subsequent comments, I chose the wording before seeing the discussion on MarkRomero's talk page. I based it on the edit summaries. Nevertheless, I think his response directly below indicate that the issue is not resolved. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I do disagree with calling it TTU Red vs scarlet. I have always know the official colors to be scarlet and black, although I know that unofficially some refer to it as red and black. IMO the identity guidelines refer to it as TTU Red more for clarity sake, rather than keeping with tradition. Also, the identity guidelines are the first time I have ever heard the color referred to as TTU Red. As for verifiability I can provide a source that states the colors are scarlet and black. --MarkRomero (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha, well I'm sorry for my misunderstanding. I wouldn't have known if it weren't for our friend, Wordbuilder. Any reason you chose not to inform me first, Mark? While I'm sad that I wasn't told personally, I'm very glad that we have some other contributors to the discussion! --King of the Arverni (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing personal, just happened so fast. I didn't log in and see your comments yesterday and by the time I got around to logging in today the names were already changed and the conversation moved to this talk page. --MarkRomero (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think the identity guidelines are there for depicting the specific color, not naming the color itself. I haven't done much research into the color scarlet, but they may have called it "TTU Red" because there was/is no name for that specific shade of red that they desired. I don't think their intentions were to have our own shade of red; if it were, I believe we would hear more about it from Tech, news releases, ect. The fight song also refers to is as scarlet. It sure would sound weird saying, "Fight for the TTU Red and TTU Black!" --Almosthonest06 (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good point, Almosthonest06. I noticed that the history of the Masked Raider involved a "scarlet" cape. I wonder if the originators didn't know what scarlet was, haha, or if the marketing people just got carried away when they created "TTU Red". Either way, I'd like this to have coverage in the article, in a note if not the body, instead of a recurring talk page "disagreement". I'm honestly still surprised that I was the first to add any real mention of the colors, never mind a source (per WP:V). --King of the Arverni (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's my weigh-in on this. We had it as Red for a long time, then changed it to Scarlet in an attempt to preserve the traditional color name. Tech calls the hex code #CC0000 "Texas Tech Red" or something like that, but that's basically just to specify that color in layman's terms for thematic consistency (websites, print, etc). Typically, people describe the school colors as "Red and Black" but, in my opinion, that's just a sort of evolution/degradation of the language (it's easier to say). I believe when the color scheme was adopted, "Scarlet" was the name chosen to describe it. Likewise, I believe the university still officially says that "scarlet and black" are the colors. Fight, Raiders, Fight even describes it as Scarlet and Black (which qualifies it as canon as far as I'm concerned).

I would expect Harvard might take similar issue if someone realized the hex code for what they call "crimson" was actually called "berry red". I don't think many universities are terribly concerned about aligning their color palette with the traditional names they use for the colors. That being the case, I lean heavily toward leaving it as Scarlet.

A side note on the origination of color names, etc. I think now, with technology and the internet and such, the precision with which we can use, create, and identify color is infinitely larger than in the 1920s or 1800s or whenever these universities started forming their images. I'm sure there are a million examples of names like crimson, scarlet, vermilion, carnelian, rose, etc being used wherein those names will not remotely match the hex codes.--Elred (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Averni I just noticed you brought up mentioning the color name differential in the body of the article. I think that would be pretty inappropriate. Considering the article is already quite long and has been through the meat-grinder of the Featured Article process, I think adding something of such dubious relevence would do nothing but detract from the article's quality. That would basically draw this lengthy, irrelevant debate on the nature and use of "color names" into the body of the article.--Elred (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"Inappropriate?" Really? Because the article is quite long? That's not a good enough reason for omitting information about TTU institutional identity, IMHO. I noticed the removal of the information. It certainly wasn't "inappropriately worded" as was claimed. I'm more concerned that one would remove information with a reliable source. If it's part of the institutional identity at all, rather than of the "dubious relevance," then it should be included. Furthermore, if it's featured in the infobox than it should be cited somewhere in the article itself to meet WP:V. I'm fine with leaving it scarlet; I've certainly agreed with some of the arguments made in favor of using that term. But I strongly defend the inclusion of that information, complete with reliable sources, in the article. New editors like me shouldn't need to sift through talk pages to know what the colors are and via what sourced that information meets WP:V. --King of the Arverni (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not be offended by Elred's revert. It's not because the article is long, but rather the anguish WB and Elred went through to make that article an FA (both admittedly and unfortunately I did not have much of a hand in it); WB and Elred are therefore very protective of their work. Everything added must be well worded, sourced, and relevant. By "inappropriately worded," I think Elred meant the use of TTU. Throughout that entire article, the school is always referred to as Texas Tech, not TTU (correct me if I'm wrong, Elred). I also side with Elred on the fact that it should not be included in the body of the article. Adding a one sentence blurb about the colors of the school under the athletics section would hardly be notable as it is already mentioned in the infobox. If there were to be more to expand upon, such as the history of decision to use the colors, then the argument would be stronger for inclusion. "Their colors are TTU Red/Scarlet and Black" really doesn't fit or flow very well with the article. WB and Elred worked tirelessly on this darn thing so it could become an FA, so just keep that in mind if your additions are reverted or changed. There's always a good reason and intention. --Almosthonest06 (talk) 04:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

To meet WP:V couldn't we place 2 citations, to the identity and facts page, in the infobox next to the colors? I think that would satisfy anybody who is curious as to how we came up with the hex codes and the names. --MarkRomero (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be perfect IMHO. WP:V is my life (on Wikipedia! Haha!). King of the Arverni (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] I agree with MarkRomero and Arverniking about adding citations to support both the use of the hex code and the name "scarlet". Further, the <ref> tag is also intended to allow editors to include notes when something requires further explanation that is not ideal for the body proper. I think it would be appropriate to make such a note in this case. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I love to be WP:BOLD, but I'd love to leave this to someone more educated on matters TTU (Mark, El, or Word); I think I've caused enough trouble here :-). Does that sound reasonable? King of the Arverni (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem with being bold. That is the beauty of Wikipedia; disagreements force us to hash out a solution that is best for the project. If the citations/note is consensus, then anyone can take care of that. If you are hesitant because you are unsure of the wording, Arverniking, then one of the other of us can handle it. Do not feel bad; I do not think that anyone in this conversation has not had at least one edit reverted, changed, or otherwise corrected by someone else in this conversation. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Spot on, Word. It's the "appropriate" wording that I'm concerned about. I didn't see anything wrong with the wording before, and the impropriety of it hasn't quite been spelled out for me by the claimant (who also seems to have community support in that respect), so I'd like someone better-informed to do the deed. I just wanted to communicate that, in case anyone had expected me to take up that mantle. King of the Arverni (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Elred can weigh in, but I think what he meant by "inappropriately worded" is simply that it is not called "TTU Red" except in behind-the-scenes things like choosing paint colors and web page specifications. The problem probably lies in the limited amount of space given to summarize something that needs a more detailed explanation. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, by inappropriate, I meant the use of the word "their" in that sentence to describe the athletic teams. While it is actually correct when used in reference to multiple teams, it seems a bit unpolished. *We've gone to lengths to polish and massage the verbage and sentence structure in this whole article, so additions of this nature sometimes feel like someone drew dogs playing poker on our freshly painted Sistine Chapel. (no offense intended)  ;) Also, as others have noted, the mention of the colors in that part of the article sort of jumped the tracks on the flow of the paragraph. The other thing that almosthonest mentioned was that I've tried to always called it either "Texas Tech University" or "TTU". I have no objection to the TTU abbreviation in the first line, that's quite common. (Elred...at work) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.173.36 (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have made the changes to the article that we agreed upon. Let me know if something doesn't look right. --MarkRomero (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks for that. King of the Arverni (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Name Change

Wanted to inform you all that I have changed my WP username from MarkRomero to Voltin. If you wish to verify it you can see the log entry. --Voltin (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Creating a "Double T" article?

Considering the Double T logo stopped a name change to Texas State and unique design (unlike Green Bay Packers & Georgia Bulldogs, Howard Bison & Buffalo Bills, etc.), it just seems like it should have its own article. NThomas (talk) 05:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can find enough sources to put together an article, that'd be great. In lieu of that, the information could be added to Texas Tech University traditions. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I figured I could expand on the information from section from the university page. Go into detail about the history, include the old logo, include it's usage including the the Double T Bench and the sign at the south end of Jones AT&T Stadium. I'm guessing Double T would be the best title for the article? (opposed to Double T logo or Double T spirit mark) NThomas (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"Double T" is the most common way to refer to it, so I would go with that as the article's title. There is one version of the old logo already uploaded. →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created the Double T article. I think the only thing that really needs work is the usage section. I feel comfortable with the history section since it was pretty much perfectly sourced from other articles. Things that weren't I made sure were in that section. Any suggestions on potential expansion or comments? Also, it legitimize the article, what other articles should link to Double T that don't already? Feel free to reply on the Double T talk page. Thanks! NThomas (talk) 08:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Big 12 WikiProject

I'm trying to gauge the interested in created a Big 12 WikiProject and wondering who would like to be involved. There are already pages for WikiProject Big Ten and WikiProject ACC. A Big 12 project would cover the schools themselves and anything to do with conference sports including: events, rivalries, teams, seasons, championships and lore. There is already quite a bit of activity here on Wikipedia regarding the Big 12, and I think a project could help coordinate and unify our efforts. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Big 12 if you are interested, and add your name to the list. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Texas Tech Red Raiders football seasons

I've been working on List of Texas Tech Red Raiders football seasons for a couple months and after getting a peer review, I nominated it for Featured List status. Please comment and critique the list on it's nomination page. Hopefully WP:TTU will have it's first FL article soon!

NThomas (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Less than three weeks later... WP:Texas Tech has its first Featured List! Check it out! NThomas (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations NThomas. Great work! --Almosthonest06 (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Congrats, and thanks for the hard work. --Voltin (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Getting your compliments and seeing a new category on the WikiProject:TTU Assessment char is pretty cool stuff. NThomas (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Texas Tech Red Raiders men's basketball seasons

After working on List of Texas Tech Red Raiders football seasons and going through the process to get WP:Texas Tech its first Featured list, I'm hoping lightning will strike twice with...

...List of Texas Tech Red Raiders men's basketball seasons.

I've already nominated it for Featured List status. I was very happy with the response and support with the last list in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates and I'm hoping to see an even bigger turn out for this one. Don't forget to leave your comments and critiques on this new list's nomination page. NThomas (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I could use some support for Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Texas Tech Red Raiders men's basketball seasons/archive1. I previously had too many redlinks but that's all taken care of. There was a good turnout last time and I'm hoping for just as much Red Raider support. Thanks! NThomas (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head football coaches nominated for FL

There's a ton of potential TTU lists that would meet the criteria I'd like to get to featured list status (men's basketball coaches, men's basketball tournament results, baseball seasons, university presidents, Red Raiders in the NFL Draft, list of buildings, Historic District buildings, etc.). Right now, I need comments and support (if you support that the article meets the criteria) for...

List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head football coaches on its nomination page.

Any comments and critiques would be helpful in getting this one to Featured List too. Thanks. NThomas (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you're doing an incredible job with the new Texas Tech articles and lists you've created. I just wish I had more time right now to dedicate to helping you get them up to featured status.

I want to give you a word of warning. Some may consider your posting here, asking for support, to be Wikipedia:Canvassing. I know that's not your intent. I just don't want anyone to perceive it that way and take a negative view of you or your work. Wikipedia has so many rules and guidelines, I'm not sure I'll ever know them all. Most editors are forgiving but some get wrapped up in the "letter of the law", so I wanted to make you aware.

Keep up the great work! →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. There are so many easy lists to do, its discouraging to see a small directional school like UAB (in a Non-AQ conference) with List of UAB Blazers football seasons while Texas Tech, on the verge of flagship status, didn't even have a season list let alone a featured list. Just wanted to get the lists up to par with the rest of the Texas Tech articles. Also, I figured there was some rule about that. I'd like to think no one would take my intentions the wrong way. I've tried to phrase my announcements about the WP:FLC articles in a neutral position (ex.: Don't forget to leave your comments and critiques and I need comments and support if you support that the article meets the criteria) as opposed to This is a Texas Tech list and if you call yourself a Red Raider support this. In the future I'll use Template:Please see. Thanks for the heads up. NThomas (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the nomination page and see if I can lend a hand. Lists seem a bit easier to get to featured status than articles. A few of us went through hell to get the Texas Tech University to featured status. I think it left us a bit burnt out. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I can imagine the hell it took to get TTU to FA. The hardest part for me with these FLs are the leads. I can't imagine doing that for the entire article. That was before my time on WP:TTU so now ya'll can sit back and relax while I do my part for the WikiProject. NThomas (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Does Reese Technology Center fall under WP:TTU?

Does the Reese Technology Center (RTC) fall under WP:TTU since the Texas Tech University is considered a "anchor tenant"? The TTU has 4 research centers at RTC, most notably the Wind Science and Engineering Research Center. Even though it isn't entirely run by TTU like UNT's Discovery Park or UT Austin's J. J. Pickle Research Campus, I still think the Reese Technology Center would fall under WP:TTU's umbrella. What do you all think? NThomas (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say no on this as it is only tangentially related. Much the same reason Lubbock, Texas has not been included in the project. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head men's basketball coaches/archive1

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head men's basketball coaches/archive1. NThomas (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Don't bother now. It failed because only one person cared to give it a real review. I can't believe one person here couldn't take a look at it. It takes less than 10 minutes for these lists and not one person bothered to help promote Tech's presence on the web here with another FL. NThomas (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Fuller Track

Check out the discussion. Need some help finding it's real name. NThomas (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Memorial Circle

Inspired by a recent article published by Texas Tech, I decided to start writing an article on Memorial Circle in my user space. First, do we feel that Memorial Circle can support it's own article or should it, instead, by merged with the main and campus article? Second, I would like some feedback on the article stub I have so far so please feel free to leave me feedback or make some changes.

For now I would like to leave the article in my user space so that if we decide to make its own article it is still eligible for DYK. Thanks! —Voltin ^(T|C) 21:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the article. However, I'm concerned that notability isn't established. The sources, while they cover the claims, are from Texas Tech instead of from a third party. So, it should either be merged with the main campus article or sources added until it can stand on its own. →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Here are some of the better references I've been using offline for the university campus article:

• "Texas Technological College Historic District". Texas Historical Commission. http://atlas.thc.state.tx.us/common/view_narrative.asp?narrative=96000523.htm&title=Texas%20Technological%20College%20Historic%20District&filepath=E:\atlas_text\nr_listed\html. 
• Barrick, Nolan (1985). Texas Tech... The Unobserved Heritage. Lubbock, Texas: Texas Tech University Press. ISBN 0-89672-125-6. 
• Andrews, Ruth Horn (1956). The first thirty years; a history of Texas Technological College, 1925-1955. Lubbock, Texas: Texas Tech University Press. 
• Rushing, Jane Gilmore (1975). Evolution of a university: Texas Tech's first fifty years. Austin, Texas: Madrona Press. ISBN 0890520178. 

There's plenty of info scattered in these books and the NRHP listing has some info too. NThomas (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You've got a great start on this. The article should be fairly large when everything is fleshed out. Here are some ideas for the article:

• The lead starts out as: "Memorial Circle is located..." how about including "roundabout" so it starts out as: "Memorial Circle is a roundabout located..." As it is right now, if readers not familiar with the subject wouldn't have any clue there was a road encompassing/part of the circle.
• Since Memorial Circle, along with Amon G. Carter Plaza (the eastern esplanade) and the Engineering Key (the northern esplanade), together are a contributing site to the Texas Technological College Historic District, you should include the NRHP Infobox for the Landscape/Esplanade since Amon G. Carter Plaza and the Engineering Key have almost no chance of having their own article. This would be the best place for it other then List of Texas Technological College Historic District properies
• How about an "External links" section with a link to Memorial Circle's location on the www.ttu.edu campus map

Just some ideas. Keep up the good work. Just curious, what were you thinking of using as the hook for DYK? NThomas (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions, I have incorporated them into the article. I am not to familiar with the NRHP infobox (or the NRHP in general), so would you mind taking a look to make sure I that is is filled in correctly. I have not had time lately to work on the article lately, and probably won't until the July. When I have more free time I will see if I can't get a hold of those sources you mentioned (I hope the TTU library has copies on file.) As for the DYK hook, I really hadn't thought about that yet. If you have any suggestions I would happy to hear them. Thanks. —Voltin ^(T|C) 22:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The infobox looks great except... the name is suppose to be the same as the historical designation "Landscape/Esplanade", "Memorial Circle" doesn't need to be in "location', and since it's a site and not a building, the architectural style entry isn't needed. NThomas (talk) 04:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason why I put Memorial Circle into the location was because it is encompassed by the street named "Memorial Circle", so it is basically its address. I am open to removing it, just wanted to clarify why I put it there in the first place. I implemented your other suggestions, thanks for the help. I was able request the books you suggested from the University Library, hopefully they can provide some more insight and most importantly sources. —Voltin ^(T|C) 20:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a ton of useful information both. For the DYK hook, in one of those books, it mentioned that Memorial Circle once had seven traffic lights. That's pretty excessive for a roundabout, especially considering that there aren't any today. Another one would be about the not walking on the grass, but using that seems a bit too... Aggie. NThomas (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Need help finding the Jones AT&T Stadium logo

I figured this would be the best place to put out a request. I've been looking for awhile and still can't find a quality image of the logo. Anybody know of a pdf or just the logo itself that's online? Thanks. NThomas (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize it has its own logo. Can you give me an idea of what it looks like? →Wordbuilder (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It stretches on the field from the 35 to 15 yard line and is all over the stadium on banners and walls. Here's some examples I could find.

• [2]
• [3] on the video from 2:09-2:12
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

I'm thinking if it can't be found, it might be possible to recreate it in photoshop... NThomas (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I've seen it a hundred times but I can't recall seeing it represented by itself; just in the pictures of the field and stadium. →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep an eye out for it. I know I've been, but no such luck yet. NThomas (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Texas Tech University to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Texas Tech University/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Firing Section of Mike Leach Article

I am looking for some feedback on some recent changes made by another editor to the Mike Leach article. I have added a new section the article's talk page for discussion. Any comments would be appreciated. —Voltin ^(T|C) 18:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Tech Stadium or Tech Field

I'm trying to find which name to use. I've found 6 sources about it and it's a 50/50 split. 3 call it Tech Stadium and the other 3 call it Tech Field. Tech Stadium or Tech Field (depending on the source) was the former football stadium built in 1926 and demolished before the 1947 season to make way for Jones AT&T Stadium. Any help finding out which name is correct, or which name should be used as the title for a future article would appreciated. Thanks. NThomas (talk) 07:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have La Ventana yearbooks covering most years between 1926 and 1947. I'll check them for contemporary usage. I might also be able to find a picture or two for the article. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Texas Tech Red Raiders football#Individual honors

I've been working section by section on Texas Tech Red Raiders football, and while I'm comfortable with what I've expanded/added in other sections so far (Stadium, Rivalries, and Head coaches), I'm not too sure about the Individual honors section. It's based on Maryland Terrapins football#Individual honors to give you some background as to what I was going for. Any critiques and comments would help. Thanks. NThomas (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it looks good, and is very in-depth. The only negative I can come with is that it is a little stats heavy (although, I personally don't think that is a bad thing.) In my opinion it far exceeds the section that you gave as the reference, good job. —Voltin ^(T|C) 21:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. NThomas (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I would change is the sentence that begins, "11 players have received a majority of votes..." As I recall, begining a sentence with a non-spelled-out number is discouraged. Maybe the sentence could be reworded to keep the 11 in numeric form but not at the very beginning. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Any ideas on how the sentence could be restructured? Seeing "11" instead of "Eleven" is easier to see when just scanning the text (in my opinion), so I'm shooting at preserving the numerical form. NThomas (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

How about this: By receiving a majority of votes during selection for the respective seasons, 11 players have been named consensus All-Americans. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks. NThomas (talk) 04:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Texas Tech University articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Texas Tech University articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

New Texas Tech University identity guidelines

I received an email from TechAnnounce about changes to Texas Tech University's identity guidelines. Here's part of the release:

It has been five years since the current Visual Identity System went into effect establishing the coat of arms signatures. Since then, there have been many, many requests from units across the campus to allow the use of the Double T with the full department or college name.

While the coat of arms remains an important academic mark for the university, beginning Sept. 20, a new Double T lockup will be available to give units a choice of which signature to use based on the type of communication being delivered.

The new university lockup will first appear on the Texas Tech home page and top level pages beginning Sept. 20. Additionally, everyone who currently links to a TTU IT-created masthead graphic will see the Double T replace the Coat of Arms...

...For print, promotional and other digital pieces, units will be able to choose which signature works best, based on the type of communication being delivered...

...Visit http://www.depts.ttu.edu/communications/identityguidelines/ for more information on our branding initiatives.

Since the Texas Tech academic coat of arms is on its way out and is being replaced with the Double T should we do the same on Wikipedia? All of the Texas Tech University colleges, departments, and schools on Wikipedia use the academic coat of arms currently, so this decision would effect at least 16 articles (and even more in the future). The precedent to use the coat of arms without a wordmark should continue with the transition to the Double T replacing the coat of arms with this svg version of the Double T. Any thoughts? NThomas (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If I'm reading correctly, the coat of arms isn't really on its way out so much as more flexibility is being offered in choosing between it and the Double T. That said, Wikipedia is more about presenting the most common identifier, rather than adhering to the identity guidelines put out by companies or schools. Because the Double T is Tech's primary logo and because the Double T image is not copyrighted, it should be preferred here over the CoA. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and replaced the Coat of Arms with the Double T on the colleges and research center articles. NThomas (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

US Collaboration reactivated & Portal:United States starting next

Casliber recently posted a suggestion on the talk page for WikiProject United States about getting the US Wikipedians Collaboration page going again in an effort to build up articles for GA through FA class. See Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM. After several days of work from him the page is up and ready for action. A few candidates have already been added for you to vote on or you can submit one using the directions provided. If you are looking for inspiration here is a link to the most commonly viewed articles currently under the scope of Wikiproject United States. There are tons of good articles in the various US related projects as well so feel free to submit any article relating to US topics (not just those under the scope of WPUS). This noticeboard is intended for ‘’’All’’’ editors working on US subjects, not just those under WPUS.

The next item I intend to start updating is Portal:United States if anyone is interested in helping. Again this is not specific to WPUS and any help would be greatly appreciated to maximize visibility of US topics. The foundation has already been established its just a matter of updating the content with some new images, biographies and articles. Please let leave a comment on the Portals talk page or let me know if you have any questions or ideas. --Kumioko (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

TTUHSC split

As Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (TTUHSC) is a separate institution within the Texas Tech University System (TTUS), I've gone ahead and moved all TTUHSC articles into a new category (Category:Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center). This includes all schools and branches under TTUHSC. Previously, all TTUHSC articles had been in the TTUS category. NThomas (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Help Improve Texas Projects and Portals

This is an open invitation to anyone interested in helping to update the information on the various Texas projects and portals. The information is generally out-of-date, sometimes by years. Every little bit helps. Every small improvement adds to the larger whole. Together, we can get the Texas pages to look current and helpful to visitors.

These two Category links will take you to the various pages:

• Category:Texas portals
• Category:WikiProject Texas

Anyone interested in improving the basic look and structure, could open a WP:RfC. Dialogue is good for the project.

These are areas I see could be improved, in addition to miscellaneous information on the portal and project pages:

• Participant lists could be divided in to two separate lists: Active, and Inactive participants
• Task lists that require monitoring, can be somewhat automated by replacing the individual topic items with category page links
• Eliminate duplication of efforts. Inter-connect the like sections in different pages to a singular template.

As an example, I already updated the Open Tasks on WikiProject Texas, and the Things You Can Do on the Texas portal. These are exactly the same information, but point to two different templates. In a perfect world, these two pages would point to the same template, but they don't - possibly due to page formatting. I updated the templates they point to, so at least the individual items will point to Wiki links that would, in essence, make the list items self-updating. But it would be better if both pointed to only one template.

-Maile66 (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on WikiProject Texas regarding support by WikiProject United States

WikiProject Texas Tech University has been mentioned as being added to a list of projects being supported by WikiProject United States. You are invited to join the dialogue Here

-Maile66 (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)