Jump to content

Talk:Louisiana Tech University/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

A Bulldog and Champ?

What does "Champ" refer to in the university title box? Madmaxmarchhare (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Answer: "Champ" is the name of the costumed mascot bulldog (i.e. human in a bulldog suit) who performs comedy and pep routines at La Tech sporting events. So far, Champ has always been performed by a very athletic male student capable of extreme acrobatics and, when necessary, all-around dog fighting (a heavily padded costume with football shoulder pads comes in handy). At times, Champ has been guilty of performing amazing stupid pet tricks. He also has a knack of getting the last "word" against other collegiate mascots by good-naturedly throwing an arm across the shoulders of his opponent, then lifting one leg upon him or it. Although regarded as officially unsanctioned behavior, Champ has also been known to "get on from behind" an opposing mascot (i.e. "jump and hump").204.58.248.33 (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A land grant?

La Tech is a member of Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU), but it is not a land grant institution. Please see the following link. If one has a reference that La Tech IS a land-grant, please share with us.

http://www.aplu.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=249&srcid=183

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmknh (talk • contribs) 14:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The "Legend of the Bulldog" section is copied, nearly completely, from the cited page, which is under copyright of CBS Sports. http://www.latechsports.com/ot/latc-LegendoftheBulldog.html Dom316 (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I removed the offending section. ElKevbo (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Image deletion discussion

Relevant deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 January 2#File:Latechfootballhelmet.gif.--GrapedApe (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Motto - same as Tulane's?

Does anyone have a reference for the LA Tech motto? The one on the Wikipedia page seems to be a duplicate of Tulane University's motto...Non Sibi Sed Suis (Not for one's self, but for one's own}. I could not find a source on the Tech website. Thanks. Aaron charles (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Replaced the motto, which was Tulane's, with the one noted in the LA Tech seal. Aaron charles (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Official colors?

The colors in the info box are #ff0000 and #002f8b. I think the red should be changed to #E31B23 as per the University's ID Standards Manual. The difference is minimal to most people who aren't graphic designers, but I think it's important for consistency. Srm038 (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Tech must have changed the red recently. It used to be #FF0000. It does need to be changed then. -AllisonFoley (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I think that was back in the early 2000s before Dooley. Fixed it on the main page. ID Standards is more recent (2011), and I know for a fact the branding model as a whole is being reworked - probably won't affect the colors but might want to keep an eye out for other changes - logos, uniforms, etc. Srm038 (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's get this to FA status

What needs to be done? Srm038 (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

This article was peer reviewed two years ago. That would be a good place to start. It is archived at this link. -AllisonFoley (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Some good suggestions there. That was 2 years ago, though. I'll continue to do what I can. It might be helpful to put the rankings section into more of a list format - there's a lot of numbers there and it makes the paragraph flow a little awkward (at least to me). Thoughts? Srm038 (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Louisiana Tech University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Listing Carneige Classification

Alison F.: can you please explain your aversion to listing the actual Carnegie Classification that LTU holds, I.e. R3? Listing the classification clarifies the actual level that the school is associated with, and has always been part of the article when it held R2 classification. So it is baffling why that should change with the new R3 classification.

Are you associated with the university? Or you an alumni of the ltu? Some clarification as to actions would be appreciated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.80.63.186 (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Reason for Edit War

Alison F.: I am again respectfully asking you why you suddenly feel the need to no longer listing the actual Carnegie Classification that LTU holds, I.e. R3? Listing the classification clarifies the actual level that the school is associated with, and has always been part of the article when it held R2 classification. So it is baffling why that should change with the new R3 classification.

Also, I would like to know if you are associated with the university? Or you an alumni of the ltu? If so, I feel that this may be influencing your editing of its web page. Per Wikipedia guidelines:

"All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

Some clarification as to your actions would be appreciated. Thank you. Pncomeaux — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pncomeaux (talk • contribs) 16:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight but it's unseemly of you and anyone else to edit war over this issue especially since this is the first time that anyone has brought up the issue here in Talk.
Moving beyond the user conduct issues to address the content: I don't think this is as clear an issue as you are portraying it to be. Unless something has changed recently, the website for the Carnegie Classifications is inconsistent in when it includes the brief prefix (e.g., "R1") in the rankings. In fact, it's only included in a few places but omitted from most. Given that the classification website itself is inconsistent and that the (re)introduction of these prefixes is still quite new, I don't think it's at all settled in the scholarly or popular media whether the prefixes should be used or omitted. So it seems inappropriate to accuse someone who disagrees with you on this issue of being biased especially when some of what you wrote ("[it] has always been part of the article when it held R2 classification") is patently false.
I think that it would be better for the larger project if you addressed this as WP:UNI to begin to flesh out a project-wide consensus on this issue. However, I'm not sure if you'd get many interested participants in that discussion so you might be better off just settling this here for this article and leaving the larger discussion for others to figure out. In any case, stop edit warring and make your arguments without stooping to ad hominem attacks or unsubstantiated questioning of others' motivations. ElKevbo (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, I disagree with your assertions about the Carneige Classifications: they are an unbiased method of measuring the various research capabilities universities, and as such are a widely respected and used tool for people who are gauging/ranking schools.
ETA: I'm also unclear about your claims that the Carneige classifications are new, inconsistent, etc. Seems to me that their ranking is unbiased, clearly defined and consistently listed.
Per the Carneige site:
http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/lookup/standard.php
A good, detailed account of it on the Wikipedia page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_research_universities_in_the_United_States#References
1. Yes, I was incorrect in stating that previous version included 'R2.' However, this is quibbling: the previous versions most definetly included the verbiage 'Research University with high research activity (RU/H).' Why would be that information be so objectionable to Ms. Folley now that the classification has been changed to 'moderate research?'
2. Ms. Folley has devoted a huge amount of time writing and maintaining the Wikipedia article for LTU. It is hard to imagine that she has not been compensated for all of the time and work she has devoted to this project. Per Wikipedia guidelines:
"Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation."
3. Regardless as to whether she is being compensated or not she is a graduate of LTU, which means she has a bias towards them. Also per Wikipedia guidelines:
"People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering......"
4. I have tried to reconcile this issue by reaching out to Ms. Folley in the talk pages to discuss and hopefully resolve our differencesi. She has declined to do so, and merely continues to undo the edits.
In summary, including the Carneige data in the article makes it more informative and dies so in an unbiased manner; it also has been included in the previous versions. There is no logical reason to no longer include it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pncomeaux (talk • contribs) 16:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I apologize for not being more clear: I don't think that anyone is challenging the inclusion of the Carnegie Basic Classification, just specifically whether to include the "R3:" prefix. I would oppose the removal of the classification from this (and any other) article if someone were to take that stance. But as discussed above whether to include the prefix or not is an unsettled issue and it appears to be the basis for your disagreement.
You may also want to ensure that you're familiar with this policy. I don't know if the information you've presented above is accurate but if it's information that you have dug up yourself that the editor in question has not shared here then it's almost certainly a violation of both our policies and our community norms to post it here. Please focus on the editor's actions, not the editor.
(And please note that my discussion above about the inconsistency of the new version of the classification scheme is also focused solely on the inclusion of the prefix in the basic classification. If you poke around their website, you'll see it used in some areas and not used in others. I've already spoken with their director about this - I'm an alumnus of their PhD program and the specific research center that now directs this project - and he indicated to me that the inconsistency is the result of compromises made between those who wanted to reintroduce the prefixes and those who did not.) ElKevbo (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I did not realize that listing the current business operations of editors was in violation of that policy. I have removed it, and would request that an admin also remove it from the editing portion of the article.

To be clear, my intention was in no way to 'bully' or 'out' Ms. Folley in any way. It was only to illustrate the very clear bias she has in this matter, which is also a very logical reason to explain why she is refusing to include the Carneige information in the article, now that it has been lower from its previous classification.

Again, Allison Folley: why do you insist on leaving out the Carnegie GE classification information on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pncomeaux (talk • contribs) 13:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Louisiana 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

University and athletic names

There is a discussion in which you might be interested, regarding the university and athletics names used within the University of Louisiana System, at Talk:University of Louisiana System#University and athletic names. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Louisiana 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:

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) 15:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Louisiana 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:

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) 04:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

ULS 2017 Enrollment Numbers not official yet

reversed the updated enrollment numbers: the UL System has not released a formal, official version of numbers yet for any of their schools, which means that the footnote supporting the change is not valid: there is not a ULS report for 2017 yet. Changes should be made only after the official numbers are released, or, if there is valid documentation to support the change. Pncomeaux (talk)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Louisiana 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:

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) 06:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Louisiana_Tech_University/Archive_1&oldid=1172577083"