Talk:Texas Tech University

School Colors

The actual school colors are scarlet and black, not red and black.

http://www.ttu.edu/facts/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.118.48 (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is based on the official identity guidelines which states the colors are "Texas Tech Red" and "Texas Tech Black". →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Certain those are guidelines for printed/displayed materials - the official school colors are scarlet and black. Look at that fact page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.118.48 (talk) 03:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with 'anonymous' on this semantic issue. The stated colors are "scarlet and black". The technical issue is that 'scarlet' is just a vague term for many various shades of red. The technical color TTU uses is #CC0000 but they do traditionally call it 'scarlet'. I'm gonna change it on the page.--Elred (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, one of these days I will get brave enough to do an actual 'change'.  ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RazorDog (talk • contribs) 03:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. That quick bit of research inspired me to re-color all of our navigation templates to the official TTU color palette. I used TTU Red, TTU Dark Red, and TTU Cream for all of the nav boxes. ...I think it's a cool touch.--Elred (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I always thought it was scarlet, too. The guidelines just added a bit of confusion. There are other pages that need to be changed as well (e.g., Texas Tech Red Raiders football). I'll take care of it/them. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The article on Scarlet seems to state that it is not so vague. (And I always believe what I read on Wikipedia.) It claims that scarlet is #ff2400, which is somewhat brighter than Tech's #cc0000. Sterrettc (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Graphical representations for purposes of identification

[1] The reason people are so "hell bent" is that these articles (some are FAs) have gone through an extensive process with scores of editors reviewing them, many with a great grasp on what policy is and isn't. These are not logos, but the official graphical representations of the mascots in question. They are being used for purposes of identification, not a simple logo used as an icon for decoration. This goes for all the pages in which you removed relevant graphics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BQZip01 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 24 December 2008

How is "the official graphical representation of the mascots in question" anything but a logo? Both images are tagged with the {{Non-free logo}} template; is that in error as well? I know you're just going through and mass-reverting anything I touch on non-free content, but you're very clearly wrong on this one. Our Manual of Style clearly explains that logos are not icons, and cannot be used as such. (ESkog)^(Talk) 08:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

This is "the main article on the topic to which the logo[s]" pertain. The logos are official graphical representation associated with—in this case—Texas Tech University. While other articles may discuss the images, and thus qualify them for fair use there, the images have no meaining outside of their association with the university. →Wordbuilder (talk) 09:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't Texas Tech Red Raiders be the "main article on the topic to which the logo[s]" pertain? --ElKevbo (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

My main objection here is that they are used as icons in the infobox, rather than in an article or section discussing the mascots. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia works in such a way that the prevailing interpretation of the MOS wins the day right? I think that's how it goes pretty much. So ESkog, I guess you just need to round up about 100 people who agree with you (for starters), then we'll start grinding into this issue. We'll get the editors from TAMU (FA) and Michigan (FA) and all of those who supported their FACs to fall on our side of course, since they use similar images in their info-boxes. Get to work son. Either that or I guess you could admit you're in the minority and find a better use for your time.--Elred (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

That's enough, Eldred. You can make your point without being patronizing. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

As long as I've made my point. Be well.--Elred (talk) 04:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The infobox is part of the article and the mascots are discussed therein. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is "discussed" in an infobox. To assert otherwise seems to be overreaching and disingenuous. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is in the article of which the infobox is a piece. They are part and parcel. The infobox cannot stand alone. The accusation of being "disingenuous" is uncalled for. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my words. I'm not disputing that the infobox is important and useful but to refer to anything in it as "discussion" is silly at best. And to then attempt to use that "discussion" to justify including non-free content is indeed disingenuous.

If you'd like to argue that we should change our policies related to non-free content to allow these logos in infoboxes then I might support such an argument as it seems reasonable and beneficial. But to attempt to work around our existing policies in this manner by making the material in the infobox out to be more than it is is indeed disingenuous. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You apparently have a reading comprehension problem. I said that the infobox is part of the article and the discussion takes place in the article. Perhaps I should have said the discussion takes place in the article proper or in the portion of the article outside of the infobox. Does that make it easier for you to understand? Since the infobox is intrinsically tied to the article, it's foolish to think that what is disucssed in the body of the aticle/the article proper/the portion of the article outside of the infobox has no bearing on the images contained inside the infobox.

Additionally, it's interesting that you would advise Elred (talk · contribs) against personal attacks and then choose to call me disingenuous. You should follow your own guidance. →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the Featured Article Review in favor of continuing the process here, as apparently there is more to that than is actually listed on the page. Why are the Manual of Style and our non-free content criteria bad ideas? Why we should carve out an exception in either one of those for a tiny, barely recognizable icon representing the university's athletics? (ESkog)^(Talk) 07:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for withdrawing the FAR. I think this is the best place to address the issue as it relates to this article. I would still be interested to have some image experts weigh in. None of those who took part in the article's FAC process had a problem with the images in the infobox. →Wordbuilder (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The removal of the FAR was probably more like a tactical retreat. In the face of a dogpile of opposition he sought a new, less visible forum to wage his effort. This isn't the best place to continue this discussion. It's a semi-private place to discuss it that actually has little to do with the TTU page, and more to do with wikipedia policy in general. Perpetuating the debate here hides the discussion from the general wikipedia community (which doesn't know it's being discussed as an issue on this specific page). ESkog's edits have received heavy push-back on every page I've seen where he made similar edits. I recommend ESkog go to the project universities main discussion area and bring about the discussion there. That way, instead of lodging his complaint with the few editors who actively monitor TTU's pages he'll face hundreds or thousands of editors in his attempt to tip wikipedia policy. It seems like a fool's errand to me, but I don't plan to waste any more time debating it since it appears that the debate is: ONE PERSON v. CONSENSUS. If he wants to log tens of hours trying to sway the consensus and succeeds, well 'oh well', I guess the little images come out of the infobox. Until then, those images will remain here and on every other one of the thousand examples of such use. The rule of the consensus is what protects wikipedia from buckling to the whims of any singular editor, and it appears to be working quite effectively.--Elred (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

When you are ready to discuss the images, I'd be glad to engage in a conversation with you. But I've had enough of your attacks on my motivations and my character. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't have any interest in discussing the images with you. You're the one who has to convince hundreds of people (myself included) that we should bend to your interpretation of the rules. I don't care what you've had enough of, it was and continues to be your pet issue. You've made several acts in poor faith on this and several pages that range from your general tone, to reversion battles, to the FAR. At this point, I don't think your concerns on this matter warrant any further discussion here.--Elred (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Added information

[Environmental Sustainability]
In April of 2009 Texas Tech hosted a symposium that focused on making the university more environmentally friendly. The symposium focused on green architecture and design but touched upon other campus sustainability issues as well. Over the past year TTU has hosted a number of speakers that focus on environmental issues, including Doug Fine.

While TTU received a D on the 2009 College Sustainability Report Card, hopefully the recent lectures on campus have sparked new interest in making Texas Tech a greener institution. [2][3]

The above information was recently added to the article. I formatted it a bit differently to better display on this page. My question is, does it belong in this article and, if so, where and how should it be worded? I lean toward excluding it. While I applaud the hosting of the symposium, it is rather insignifcant in the overall history of the university (more like news than encyclopedic content). Second, the commentary is unacceptable: "[H]opefully the recent lectures on campus have sparked new interest..." →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any way this note or topic belongs on the page. It's the definition of Wikipedia:Recentism and more like a 'news' blurb/editorial.--Elred (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

!vote # three — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Soapsuds and the direction of his butt

I think we should remove this as it is demontrably false and is intended to disparage another institution:

Rationale

Its only source is a self-published source and it fails to meet requirements under verifiability:

1. It involves a claim about a third party
2. There is reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. A simple observation of the statue shows it does not point in the direction stated in the article. It would be like citing a picture of the White House to show that it is indeed white. The same goes for this satellite image. North is up and even a basic understanding of geometry shows the legend is wrong.

Accordingly, the part about its orientation should be amended (citing the picture) and the claim about it being pointed towards College Station removed.

Thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

By the time you added your comments here, I had already added a third-party source. So, point one is moot. As for point two, the article clearly states that it is legend, which means it may not (and in this case, is not) true. Legends are acceptable as long as they are noted as such.

As far as self-sourced derogations in featured articles, it is probably appropriate to remove them. Shall we start with the following sentence from Aggie Bonfire: "Known to the Aggie community simply as 'Bonfire', the annual autumn event symbolized Aggie students' 'burning desire to beat the hell outta t.u.', a derogatory nickname for the University of Texas"? According to this, Jonathan M. Smith, the author of the source cited, is affiliated with Department of Geography, Texas A&M University. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Third party source=good and well, but it still has parts that are demonstrably incorrect.

The fact that the legend is indeed false should be annotated there. To omit that leaves ambiguity and the possibility that it is true.

Why not rephrase it to "Texas Tech claims..." that would certainly make it true.

As for Bonfire, not to get too much into the weeds, but that was the official stated intent of Bonfire. In that case, it is a verifiable fact. The source is reliable and can be corroborated if you wish (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22burning+desire+to+beat+the+hell+outta+t.u.%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=). However, point taken. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Find a reliable, third-party source stating that the claim is untrue and the text can be changed to reflect that. Perhaps something along the lines of "While proven untrue, according to one legend..." I think that is overkill since it already says it is a legend. To say "Texas Tech claims..." is not accurate. The university itself publishes it as a campus legend, not as fact.

For Aggie Bonfire, to meet your standards, that corroboration should be added to the article so the derogatory term is based on more than self sourcing. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

1. I don't have to prove that this story is false, only that there is "reasonable doubt as to its authenticity."

   The picture shows clearly that the statue doesn't face 23 degrees north of due west. The picture has been published by a reliable third party and no one doubts that it is Will Rogers on his horse. There is no viable reason to include this claim as it is clearly false.

2. We shouldn't use the word "legend" because it is too ambiguous. A legend can be true or false unless we clarify the source of that story more clearly.

   We could start it with "Texas Tech claims..." because that makes the story 100% true. It is a fact that they claim it. Anyone can make their own call on its truthfulness or accuracy.

   Likewise, we could also state "Texas Tech legend states..." and then follow it with the image in question stating it doesn't appear to face the direction stated in legend

   In any case, telling the admittedly false story without including contradictory information falls against WP:V.

3. As for the Bonfire article, it is a fact that that is the reason it was constructed.

   In contradiction, it is a falsehood that the statue's butt faces College Station and that it faces 23 degrees north of due West. Both of these can be proven with simple measurements. If someone claims in a reliable publication that they have the longest building and someone else says, "That isn't true. Here's an image that shows a longer building." It doesn't mean that the claim isn't a claim, but the factualness of the claim is doubtful. We shouldn't omit such disclaimers. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, the "threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true". The claim meets this threshold. Your claims, while true, are original research without a reliable, third-party source. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it is verifiably false (at least parts of it). This published photo shows such a claim to be false and that is not "original research" as this photo has been published. I am not claiming anything historical is inaccurate (it was supposed to face into the sunset or that TTech made it to honor Will Rogers). A picture can show that the White House is indeed white. It could show the placement of streets. Maps can show the basic orientation of countries. Images can certainly be proof for verifiability. All this image shows is that the basic orientation is not as the legend claims.

Moreover, you admit the story isn't true, yet you insist it is verifiable? I would agree with the statement that "Texas Tech has a legend..." with a disclaimer that it is false or something to that effect, but we don't tell stories here that aren't true when it is known they are false. I'm sure I could point to a dozen websites that state Texas can secede from the Union or form 5 separate states if it wishes (hell, Governor Perry, an Aggie, said this too), but it doesn't make it true and it shouldn't be included because it is demonstrably false. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

In a picture of the White House, I can see that it is white. In the picture you linked to, I do not even see College Station. The necessity to either know or discover data not already present forces original research.

It is a fact that a campus legend claims the statue was turned so the rear faces College Station. It is cited and, therefore, verifiable. You may not like it, but it is what it is.

You and I are unlikely to come to an agreement on this. So, we can either let it stand or wait for others to weigh in and create a consensus. →Wordbuilder (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that we can agree upon; that it is a campus legend and demonstrably false. Would you object to wording it as such?

The objection I have is twofold:

1. The statue is not turned 23 degrees from due West and that can be determined from the image.
2. Simple measurement shows the true course from the statue to College Station is 122 degrees and that's 114 degrees when magnetic variation is taken into account. I'll concede that's certainly close enough to the reciprocal of the direction the statue is claimed to face (270+23=293=direction it faces; 293-180=113=direction the butt purportedly faces). Since the statue doesn't face this way, the claim is demonstrably untrue. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Worbuilder, the article does cite a source for the claim which meets WP:V. Here is an except of WP:V : "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth...". Also I believe that the article makes it clear that it is a legend.

Both of your objections are based on WP:OR.

1. From that photo how do you know that how many degrees it is turned? Even if we had a way to determine which way is west from the photo, the heading of the tail of statue could be distorted due to the way the photo was taken or via photo editing.
2. That is text book WP:OR specifically: "This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." (Emphasis added.)

I personally have heard the legend, but do not know if it is true or not and was not able to find anything in a quick Google search. If we can find a reliable source which meets WP:V that proves the legend is false, I would be fine with the article being updated to reflect such changes. --Voltin (talk) 05:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with the photo? Surely that is enough to retract the comment about 23 degrees. Thoughts? `

And, sorry, I was saying we should label it as a campus legend. That it is demonstrably false is a separate matter. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying that anything is wrong with the photo, but like I said to extrapolate anything from the photo would require original research (see point 1 from my comment above). Like I said if we can find a source that meet WP:V, we can change it. To cite the photo would be confusing, especially because we have 2 sources (1 from Tech, 1 3rd party) the do not even hint that it might not be true. --Voltin (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a simple measurement, not analysis, and basic math. I think we would all agree that google maps is a valid site. Would you have any issue if I said it was 158 miles from San Antonio to Houston in a generally Eastern direction citing the distance and basic layout between them on the map? The same goes for this statue. It clearly doesn't face 23 degrees north of due west as the legend claims. It appears to be somewhere between 30 and 45 degrees off, but that would be WP:OR and I'm not going to quibble on that. To put this in context, it would be the difference between stating you were going northwest when in fact you were going north. Besides, I think we may be resolved here (see below), so the discussion is academic at this point. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] I have no objection to changing the wording to "According to a campus legend, the statue was originally to be positioned with Will Rogers facing due west..." BQ's picture does indicate that the legend is untrue. The problem I have with it is the same one that Voltin does: it cannot stand alone to source the claim. Texas Tech's channel on YouTube recently did a MythBusters-type investigation into the claim and found it to be false. However, citing YouTube, especially in a featured article, is unwise.

The change in wording allows the information about the legend to remain while indicating that the belief itself is untrue. Unless anyone objects, I'll change it. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

In general, sounds good. I'd like to see that YouTube clip (link?) and I think it meets the criteria for inclusion since it came from their channel and not YouTube at large. In other words, it is from a reliable source and is hosted on YouTube, not from an anonymous source with varying degrees of reliability. If it were broadcast elsewhere too (like the local PBS station, that would be useful too). And you thought we couldn't reach a consensus... :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Here you go, BQ. YouTube video →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Now, if I just wasn't at work and could actually watch it... — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I went ahead and changed it to campus legend since we agree on that.

The rest: Why would we not disclose something is patently false even if reliable sources inaccurately state to the contrary? Jimbo said it best: "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". Given our current policies, I think WP:IAR applies in spades on this one. The only matter is the wording and how to source it appropriately, agreed? — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not a matter of presenting false information as true. In that case, it would state something like, "The statue was turned so the rear would face College Station..." It is a matter of presenting a legend and is worded as such. For instance, with Robin Hood, Wikipedia is not saying he was a real person; it is only saying that there is such a character in folklore. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point there, but we shouldn't mix fact (the spirit orgs wrap it in crepe paper) and fiction (the direction the horse points) in the same paragraph without some delineation. In fact the paragraph states almost exactly as you said it shouldn't, "To solve this problem, the statue was turned 23 degrees to the northwest so Soapsuds' rear would face southeast, toward College Station, Texas..." I agree this story should be included, as it is a popular tale, but the fact that it is false should also be prominently noted (I would contend that most/many people don't know that campus legends are, by definition, false). How can we best state this. BTW, I'm home now and the youtube video is gold! It is published by the University, so I think it is reliable enough (that its medium is YouTube is irrelevant...). — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is the entire text of the subsection:

One of the most well-known landmarks on campus is the statue of Will Rogers on his horse Soapsuds entitled "Into the Sunset". The statue has resided at the center of the campus since it was dedicated on February 16, 1950 by Rogers' longtime friend Amon G. Carter.[160]

Carter claimed that Texas Tech was the ideal setting for the statue and that it would be an appropriate addition to the traditions and scenery of West Texas.[161] The statue, estimated to cost (in 1950) $25,000, stands 9 feet 11 inches (3 m) and weighs 3,200 pounds (1,450 kg).[162] The inscription on the plaque at the base of the statue reads: "Lovable Old Will Rogers on his favorite horse, 'Soapsuds', riding into the Western sunset."[163]

According to one campus legend, the statue was originally to be positioned with Will Rogers facing due west, so that it would appear he was riding into the sunset. However, that position would cause Soapsuds' posterior to face due east, towards the main entrance of the school. The horse's rear would also be facing downtown Lubbock, potentially insulting the Lubbock business community. To solve this problem, the statue was turned 23 degrees to the northwest so Soapsuds' rear would face southeast, toward College Station, Texas, home of rival Texas A&M University.[163][164] Before every home football game, the Saddle Tramps wrap the statue with red crepe paper. In times of national tragedies, the statue has also been wrapped in black crepe paper.[163]

The first two paragraphs should be combined as they both deal with Amon G. Carter. The information about the Saddle Tramps should be moved to form a second paragraph, though an additional sentence will be needed.

The third paragraph will be entirely about the campus legend. Reword the College Station sentence to read: "Although now proven apocryphal, the legend holds that this problem was solved by turning the statue 23 degrees to the northwest so Soapsuds' rear would face southeast, toward College Station, Texas, home of rival Texas A&M University." Add the link to the video as a citation. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. [Edit: Also the previous image placement looks better on a 1024x768 and 1280x800 screen. It messes up the Texas Tech Ring title on a 1680x1050 screen, but that is due to it's akward placement.] --Voltin (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is this sentence there?

Even though growth continued at Texas Tech, the university was not immune to controversy.

Second to last paragraph in the history section. I can't say I understand why this sentence is included when talking about the free speech pavilion. Anyone know why? NThomas (talk) 04:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's simply a transition to the lawsuit. If there is a controversy, both sides of the debate and its significance should be discussed. I think the bubonic plague mishap would be more controversial though. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BQ; it's intended to serve simply as a transition from the good (growth) to the bad (suppression of free speech). While the bubonic plague incident was unfortunate, it seems to be more about the actions of one individual rather than about the actions of the university as a whole. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I was just curious. I see now that its a transition. Thanks for a quick answer guys!NThomas (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Aw shucks, Itwern't nuttin' :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding some subsections

I know this is already a FA so I'm just throwing this idea out there so I don't jeopardize the article's status. In he interest of making the article easier to navigate, I'm curious about adding subsections into the article. It seems like the History section could be divided into three subsections:

An Establishment (or Founding or Early years or Beginning years, etc.) subsection from The call to open a college in West Texas began... to ...the college saw its enrollment leap to 5,366 from a low of 1,696 in 1943.

Expansion and growth from By the 1960s, the school had expanded its offerings... to ...four Texas cities in addition to the main campus in Lubbock.

Recent history from In 1996, the Texas Tech Board of Regents created... to the end of the section ..are eligible for match under the Texas Research Incentive Program.

If this won't effect the article's FA class status, I'll go ahead and add the subsections make the article easier to navigate.

NThomas (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking in the talk page's archives, this has already been brought up before when the history section was only ~660 words a little over a year ago. The reason the subsections weren't added because there wasn't enough information to justify the subsections. As of it's current revision, the history section is ~1,100 words. This is almost exactly the same size as Texas A&M's and UT Austin's; both have three subsections in their history sections. Even though both schools have a 50 year head start in their history compared to Texas Tech, there is clearly three distinct "ages" to Tech's history: Early years as a small agricultural school, regional college, and now it's modern period as an established national university. NThomas (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to the adding of the subsections. It would make the section easier to navigate. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:51, 28 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)

Tier One progress

Here's an TTU story about an increase in restricted research expenditures and new projections in exceeding the $400 million endowment benchmark for Tier One status: [4]. I couldn't really find an appropriate place in the article to add the updated increase in restricted research expenditures (from $27million to $35million). Is it even relevant for the article? NThomas (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Tier One info is in the last paragraph of the "Recent history" subsection. Think we could work it in there? →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking the biggest part of the article was the The primary criterion is $45 million in restricted research expenditures over two years. Texas Tech reported more than $35 million in 2009, up from $27 million. The bold section seemed significant. Maybe in a sentence in the research section. Possibly after Texas Tech University hosts 60 research centers and institutes? NThomas (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the endowment is wrong.

The link and source seems right but according to this from TTU, Tech is <$400million. The article's infobox shows ~$800m. Maybe the $800m is a system endowment? NThomas (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You may be right. I've seen this with other university articles where the system endowment is listed rather than the university endowment. If that is the case, it should be corrected. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking for awhile to find just the TTU endowment and the closest I could get was: "a little under $400m" and another that had the HSC endowment but included TTU and ASU. No help there either. NThomas (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to understand what the TTU endowment really is. The NABUCO study lists something like $750m, but TTU says it's about $400m. ...but the NABUCO study number is NOT system wide because the Angelo State endowment is not rolled into that number. If it was really system wide it would be TTU-TTHSC-ASU combined. My assumption is the NABUCO thing lists the combined endowment of TTU-TTHSC.--Elred (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've looked into this before. The number listed IS with Angelo States endowment rolled into it. The NACUBO states it is system wide and though Angelo State used to be included individually in this list it is no longer. ASU's endowment is around 98 million according to the university and US News. That is gathered with TTU & TTHSC to come up with the current figure.NativeTexan55 (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone explain why Wikipedia reports Texas Tech's endowment in terms of the $434 million attached to the Lubbock campus not including the Health Sciences Center? Wikipedia reports Louisiana State University's endowment as $554.8 million even though that figure is explicitly "Systemwide." Further, the vast preponderance of the NACUBO figure for Texas Tech (>$800 million) is dedicated to the units of the Lubbock campus, but a great deal of the figure quoted for LSU is actually dedicated to the LSU HSC in New Orleans (89 miles from LSU's main campus in Baton Rouge).

The NACUBO figures are used for Texas A&M University, University of Oklahoma, University of Texas at Austin, etc.

We don't need an edit war. What we need is consistency. Rammer (talk) 06:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

2nd largest campus

The statement 'With 1,839 acres (7.44 km2), it has the second largest contiguous campus in the United States " is an urban legend. Somehow the rub in this statement has been the word 'contiguous' and folks say the Air Force Academy is bigger because of the runways. Another myth.

Even if you can find some statement in a Tech Publication to state this is true - it is wrong All it takes is looking at some entries in Wikipedia to disprove this myth. Stanford University has over 8,000 acres on its main contiguous campus. Hell, I'm pretty sure the >5000 acres Texas A&M lists is part of there urban campus.

RazorDog (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither of the article's sources for the claim are from Texas Tech publications. →Wordbuilder (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The standard of inclusion for Wikipedia is WP:Verify, to which the claims in this article adhere. The source used for the claim in the Stanford article is merely a mirror of that article. It's unreliable and should be replaced or the claim should be removed. I've tagged it. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't saying it was from a Tech pub - just saying the few that are out there are incorrect.

I don't see where that claim is verified - but it is incorrect. I'm not sure it is even in the top 10.

The Stanford article is probably more correct than the Tech claim: Stanford's contiguous 8,180 total acres are in six different governmental jurisdictions:http://www.stanford.edu/about/facts/lands.html

Check out Berry Colleges size: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry_College

Duke has 4 campuses - one contiguous segment is 7200 acres: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_University#Campus RazorDog (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if the Stanford article "is probably more correct", it provides no source for the claim. Berry College also provides no source for its claim, and I could not find a 7,200 acre campus mentioned in the Duke article, though I did find a 720 acre campus mentioned. At least the Texas Tech article cites its claim using reliable, third-party sources. (I'd don't know why you can't see where the claim is verified.) So, it meets the standard for inclusion. Further, pointing to this article or that to make comparisons is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. →Wordbuilder (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The Stanford link is it's own source - It is the official website from Stanford. How much more verifiable do you need?

The Berry link will take you to it official website. Where a look at the 'Quickfacts' and you will see this quote: "Berry has the world’s largest contiguous college campus, spanning more than 26,000 acres of woodlands, meadows and streams." There is that 'contiguous word you are looking for.

Just click on the link I provided and you will see where the Duke Forrest is considered part of their campus - it is 7200 acres and a simple look at a map will show that it is contiguous. It may not say it in the Duke link but it is pretty easy to verify. Simple addition should make it clear.

Not sure why you are so insistent about the rumor, but you will find no credible link that does not originate from a Tech source. I have been searching since I heard this nonsense in 1983 - I have found no verifiable source.

(RazorDog (talk) 00:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC))

The University of the South is 13,000 contiguous acres: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewanee:_The_University_of_the_South, Berry College (as noted above) has a ton of space as well. 68.58.156.55 (talk) 01:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC) meant to sign this myself ... Shoopdawhoop-lazor (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the word "contiguous" in the University of the South article. At any rate, the claim there is not cited and only 1,000 of the acres are developed. See my response above regarding Berry College and regarding WP:Verify and WP:OR. →Wordbuilder (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

regardless, there's no citation for the statement, "With 1,839 acres (7.44 km2), it has the second largest contiguous campus in the United States." Neither for the size of the university nor for it's ranking as the "second largest contiguous campus". Given that there are several (though you would dispute them) examples of larger campuses and that there's no citation, I don't see how this passes WP:Verify Shoopdawhoop-lazor (talk) 05:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

How does it not satisfy the requirements of WP:Verify, which states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true" (bold text from source)?

Here is the direct quote from the article, including citations from two reliable, third-party sources: "Situated on 1,839 acres (7.44 km²), Texas Tech has the second largest contiguous university campus in the United States."

→Wordbuilder (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

which article are you talking about, my point was it's not actually cited on the page, if the citation was there, then I have no objection, but right now it's not. Shoopdawhoop-lazor (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's in the "Campus" section (it took me a while to find it, too; it would have been helpful if Wordbuilder had pointed us to its location). Those are pretty dubious sources, particularly the second one, but I'm not inclined to waste time and energy on this. But if this were true then I'd think one could find much better sources in sources that are actually relevant and authoritative. ElKevbo (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not being more precise. Every claim in the lead is mirrored in the body of the article where the citations are. I'm curious why you find the second source to be particularly dubious. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The bibliographic details are sketchy but it's a good guess that the reference is to a paper presented at the "Third Symposium on Health and Human Services in the United States and Mexico." I generally don't think it's a good idea to try to reference geographic information about a university from a paper presented at a health and human services conference as it seems unlikely to have been material on which the presenters are experts.

It would be very helpful if more bibliographic information were provided, particularly the author(s). If the information is indeed from a paper presented at the conference then we should definitely have the name of the paper's author(s) and the name of the paper itself. ElKevbo (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll see if I can come up with more details. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to bring this topic back to the surface. I am a representative of Texas Tech University and can verify that this information is incorrect. It is much like the Will Rogers & Soapsuds urban legend, in that it runs rampant, but is completely incorrect. Any verifiable source that has published this information did not themselves verify. As the university, we constantly are combating this. Is this enough to justify removal of this statement? I think the difficult part of this statement, is that there will never be a source that states, "Texas Tech is not the second largest contiguous campus in the United States." Allisonmatherly (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I no longer oppose the claim being removed from the article. It's not because it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standard of verifiability (it does) or because Allisonmatherly (talk · contribs) claims to represent Texas Tech (which is likely true but unproven) but because it likely is inaccurate and just not that important. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for not verifying my identity, (and for the differences in names, I recently got married and changing your name everywhere is difficult!). Here is a link to my Texas Tech bio page, if it helps. If no one else disagrees with removing this statement, I'll remove it from the entry. Thanks! Allisonmatherly (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on your recent wedding. I removed the multiple names from my previous post, leaving only your username. →Wordbuilder (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but by size, the campus at Texas Tech is the largest in the United States. Much of what you see on campus is used land, however there is major additional land to be used as the university expands. This includes land not presently developed but owned by the University and includes all property outside the Rawls golf course all the way to the Levelland exits to the west and to McKenzie Park to the East. To put things in perspective, you could put all of the Air Force Academy in just the main campus at Lubbock and still have much land to spare. There is no myth or legend behind this, it is simply fact that the campus has yet to fill all the acres available to it as of 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.109.232 (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

That may well be the case but, to add it to the article, a reputable, third-party source must be available as "proof." At this point, even a representative of the university is disputing that Texas Tech is even the second largest in the country. →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

TTU alumni or TTUHSC alumni

I was creating categories for Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (TTUHSC) and noticed Bernard A. Harris, Jr. is listed here as a Texas Tech University (TTU) alumni, not a TTUHSC alumni. According to the Texas Tech University System (TTUS), TTUHSC is a separate institution from TTU similar to how University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center is separate from the University of Texas at Austin, but both are part of the University of Texas System. I've already removed Harris from this page and replaced the existing Category:Texas Tech University alumni with the appropriate Category:Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center alumni. There may be others listed in the TTU alumni category that need to be moved to the TTUHSC category. NThomas (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Interviews with Texas Tech students

Unfortunate thing to watch here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

People are ignorant all over, generally speaking. Whether it's even worse in the U.S., I don't know. It wouldn't surprise me. That said, I'm sure videos like this make it look worse than it is, so as to more effectively make the point they want to make, and to get wider circulation. There's some cherry-picking going on there. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 17:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a function of sample size. Interview enough people and you could get the same result at any school in the country. Not relevant to the article as a whole Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 02:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Really? You'd get five students who draw blank looks, when asked 'who won the Civil War', at Stanford, Wesleyan, Rice, any of the nation's top 200 colleges? I doubt it; still, in this case, it seems there was cherry-picking happening in the sense of choosing the most clueless sounding students, for entertainment value, to make a point about interest in celebrity versus interest in history.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see #4 under WP:FORUM. →Wordbuilder (talk) 08:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Texas Tech University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140209052825/http://www.guidetoonlineschools.com/online-colleges to http://www.guidetoonlineschools.com/online-colleges
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.texastech.edu/giving/colleges%20%26%20schools/TTU/arts%26sciences.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pbk.org/home/newsview.aspx?id=135
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS153772%2B14-Jan-2008%2BMW20080114

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Texas Tech University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130723045613/http://www.depts.ttu.edu/museumttu/about.html to http://www.depts.ttu.edu/museumttu/about.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Texas Tech University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407104614/http://www.depts.ttu.edu/nwi/education/phd-program.php to http://www.depts.ttu.edu/nwi/education/phd-program.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070114140508/http://www.depts.ttu.edu/distancelearning/ to http://www.depts.ttu.edu/distancelearning/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130604022224/http://www.depts.ttu.edu/agriculturalsciences/about_college/page7.php to http://www.depts.ttu.edu/agriculturalsciences/about_college/page7.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929084311/http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2007/03/22/News/Business.College.Earns.Top.50.Ranking-2786200.shtml?mkey=2547874 to http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2007/03/22/News/Business.College.Earns.Top.50.Ranking-2786200.shtml?mkey=2547874
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120329065355/http://www.sinfonia.org/Directory/chapbystate.asp?STATE=TX&STATENAME=Texas to http://www.sinfonia.org/Directory/chapbystate.asp?STATE=TX&STATENAME=Texas
• Added archive https://archive.is/20070714213142/http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2003/06/13/News/Law-Student.Sues.Texas.Tech.Over.Free.Speech.Zones-494208.shtml to http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2003/06/13/News/Law-Student.Sues.Texas.Tech.Over.Free.Speech.Zones-494208.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301185853/http://www.landscapeonline.com/research/article/10951 to http://www.landscapeonline.com/research/article/10951
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120306032212/http://www.naab.org/schools/view.aspx?id=14439 to http://www.naab.org/schools/view.aspx?id=14439
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://atlas.thc.state.tx.us/common/view_narrative.asp?narrative=96000523.htm&title=Texas%20Technological%20College%20Historic%20District&filepath=E%3A%5Catlas_text%5Cnr_listed%5Chtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100430225003/http://bwnt.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/undergrad_bschool_2009/index.asp?sortCol=school_type&sortOrder=2&pageNum=1&resultNum=51 to http://bwnt.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/undergrad_bschool_2009/index.asp?sortCol=school_type&sortOrder=2&pageNum=1&resultNum=51

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Texas Tech University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130828154302/http://www.depts.ttu.edu/officialpublications/catalog/_AcademicSupport.php to http://www.depts.ttu.edu/officialpublications/catalog/_AcademicSupport.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120606000455/http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/080708_shankar.html to http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/080708_shankar.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Texas Tech University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120329071936/http://www.governor.state.tx.us/divisions/press/pressreleases/PressRelease.2008-04-02.3304/view to http://www.governor.state.tx.us/divisions/press/pressreleases/PressRelease.2008-04-02.3304/view
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_12223045
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130604023604/http://swco.ttu.edu/university_archive/uacollections5.html to http://swco.ttu.edu/university_archive/uacollections5.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080307180827/https://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS153772%2B14-Jan-2008%2BMW20080114 to https://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS153772+14-Jan-2008+MW20080114

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Texas Tech University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120218025621/http://www.reporternews.com/news/2006/Jan/27/abilene-home-to-three-distinguished-colleges/ to http://www.reporternews.com/news/2006/Jan/27/abilene-home-to-three-distinguished-colleges/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201114831/http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=2367 to http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=2367

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Texas Tech University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140408053503/http://www.betagammasigma.org/chapterlist.htm to http://www.betagammasigma.org/chapterlist.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Texas Tech University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130604022428/http://www.depts.ttu.edu/communications/identityguidelines/idguidelines/ttu/brand.php to http://www.depts.ttu.edu/communications/identityguidelines/idguidelines/ttu/brand.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130604021922/http://www.depts.ttu.edu/communications/identityguidelines/idguidelines/ttu/elements/color.php to http://www.depts.ttu.edu/communications/identityguidelines/idguidelines/ttu/elements/color.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Texas Tech University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140116120158/http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/122507/col_228878061.shtml to http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/122507/col_228878061.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Major concerns with this featured article

A quick skim brought up the following major issues

• Much of the material is dated and hasn't been updated since this article's promotion.
• There is a heavy dependence on primary sources.
• The images lack alt text.

Hopefully these can be addressed. ~ HAL333 00:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)