Talk:Texas A&M University/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

12th Man

I believe the "12th Man" gimmick was invented at USMA West Point. I centainly saw it in the late 1970s at an Army-Navy football game. Wetman 01:56, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC):Heh, read the new article. I think they might have you beaten by a few years (or, at the very least, the tradition is quite different). :)

Anyways, I understand that the term is used more generally by different teams now, but if there is a need for disambiguation on that, I'm open to it. RadicalBender 02:02, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The "Texas A&M 12th Man" started in 1922, that's certainly earlier than the 1970s. Texas A&M has a U.S. Copyright on this term.

Rankings

Do US News and World Report rankings have a place in an encyclopedia article? I'm going to eliminate some of the more glaring NPOV errors; I suggest that others be amended or sources cited for things like rankings. I love A&M, but I would hardly feel justified in saying that she was "known as one of the most prestigious" universities in the nation...--Calebbell 20:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- I removed the "one of the most prestigious" line in the article. I believe the intent was the state rather than the nation when I first wrote it. I left the U.S. News rankings in the article because it seems like a good way to introduce the individual colleges that Texas A&M is known for the most. The basic source for that information was added to this article.

Picture

Is the picture of the brown, windowless walls of the utilites plant lit by outdated light poles combined with the background of the northside parking garage really the best image to use in this article? I personally liked the old picture that this one replaced. Though low in resolution, it showed a more acurate picture of the Texas A&M campus.

I changed out the picture because it was out of focus and framed strangely, in addition to being out of focus. Admittedly, the photo it was replaced with was perhaps not the best image to use in the article, but I was looking for something that would replace another image of a street. The article is probably better without either photo. -- billatq 20:21, 11 Mar 2005 (CST)

Agreed. Since the section the picture was in was titled "Aggieland" it should probably be a picture of the city rather than the University.

Hint: College Station is called Aggieland because of the university. Figharrrburt 11:39 2 Sep 2005 (CST)

Since I am on campus, I can take a better picture if there is still a desire to change it. Should I take it of the Academic Building or Kyle Field or MSC or what? - Kugamazog

Formatting

The Traditions section is formatted all weirdly. Bullet items should just continue with the first paragraph, not indent another level. I came here trying to squash merge requests, but if I get back to it I'll consider reformatting. Sympleko 19:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What happened to all the pictures?

Endowment

The endowment appears to not have been updated for 2005. Might someone update it in the article, and here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_colleges_and_universities_by_endowment

Thanks for any help.

66.65.76.15 03:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Aggie Ring

You need a picture of the Aggie Ring. I don't know where to get a properly-licensed one. Any Aggie Wikipedians want to snap one? Sympleko 19:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wrong Picture

The picture of "midnight yell" is VERY WRONG. It is the picture of Kyle Field after the Bonfire Memorial, which was not Midnight Yell. Only the right side of Kyle Field (the student section) is used for Midnight Yell. Please do a search and find a picture on www.tamu.edu that is of Midnight Yell instead of this solemn occasion.

Thank you.

Aggie Jargon

I think there should be a section on this, since Aggies have a pretty strange vocabulary. I think I may just add this myself later. Figharrrburt 11:43 2 Sep 2005

Added one. - Anon

Thanks! Also, I added some terms such as BTHO, the War Hymn, Spirit of Aggieland, and Whoop. I figured these are well in order, since they aren't mentioned ANYWHERE else in the entire article, even though they are long-standing traditions. Correct me if I'm wrong. Yeah. Oh, and I fixed some grammar/spelling issues too :) Figharrrburt 23:47 3 Sep 2005

All that Jargon makes the article "longer than is preferable" according to Wikipedia. Perhaps it should be moved to a separate article and linked.

Separate article on TAMU traditions and jargon

This article is getting very very long int he middle when discussing Texas A&M traditions. I suggest, as someone did before, that this section be summarized on this page and the bulk of the content moves to a new page, such as Texas A&M University traditions. Overall, I think once this is done, a true overhaul of this page can be completed. It is not hard to turn a large University's page into a featured article; I think we should try that here, starting with this change. -Scm83x 11:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

External links

We have to try to minimize the number of external links on this page, and all others. Links should be limited to those that apply directly to the school, not alumni forums. Please refrain from adding anymore of these links. -Scm83x 06:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

National Merit Claims

I am completely removing the claims around National Merit. Texas A&M doesn't even rank in the top three of Texas, much less on any national list. See the 2005 numbers as posted on the University of Florida Website: http://www.honors.ufl.edu/news/meritsandachievements2005.html

If someone wants to keep the claims up, please cite evidence from somewhere! Dothivalla 22:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Business School Claims

I am removing the ranking claims from the page. The only citation is for a Forbes Ranking, yet the link points to a US News ranking. US News has A&M ranked 32, behind UT at 18. The "best B School in Texas" myth is left without any support. See: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/mba/brief/mbarank_brief.php The gold standard for Business School rankings is the semi-annual Business Week list which has A&M neither ranked in the top 30 (Which includes UT), nor the top 50 (which includes Rice), but rather in the "also considered but not ranked" category. See: http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/04/index.html If someone would like to add A&M rankings for Business PLEASE CITE.Dothivalla 03:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Engineering Claims

According to A&M's own website some of the engineering claims are not valid. Please see: http://engineeringnews.tamu.edu/portal/page?_pageid=37,3428&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p_news_id=1222

Specifically:

1. Industrial Engineering is not top 5, It is currently ranked 7
2. Neither Petroleum Engineering nor Nuclear Engineering are ranked by US News anymore
3. Industrial Distribution is not ranked by US NewsDothivalla 03:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/eng/brief/engsp12_brief.php A&M's grad school petroleum engineering program is number 3.

Fulbright Ranking Claims

A&M is not the #1 university when it comes to Fulbright Scholars. The current ranking sheet doesn't even have A&M Listed. I am removing the references. See: http://www.fulbrightonline.org/us/documents/Chronicle_Research.htm Dothivalla 04:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you read incorrectly. The article said that A&M was number one in OUTGOING Fulbright SCHOLARS. You gave the list of STUDENTS who received Fulbright SCHOLARSHIPS. The difference is that outgoing Fulbright scholars are professors who go to other countries to teach students in those countries. Perhaps try discussing the content before feeling "confident" in your research, since you seem to have difficulty in this arduous task. Figharrrburt 16:47, 23 May 2006

PUF Distribution Details

A&M is a minority stakeholder in the PUF, but the article gives the impression that A&M is the majority stakeholder. I am changing the text to match the PUF wiki entry. Dothivalla 14:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Academics Section

The Academics section of the article states "Texas A&M University is consistently ranked as one of the best universities in the nation"

Many University entries include powerful statments to summarize the university's overall ranks. A NPOV requires that we base these statements off of real facts. As the top 5 schools in the US Wiki entries show, the facts will speak for themselves:

1. Harvard: "is considered to be among the most prestigious universities in the United States and the world." Justifiable because Havard is ranked #1 by practically every ranking system known
2. Princeton: "according to The Atlantic Monthly, it is the second most selective college in the United States."
3. Yale: "less than 10 percent of the nearly 20,000 annual applicants to the undergraduate college have been offered admission"
4. Penn: "has been recognized as a leader in the sciences, the humanities, architecture, engineering and education" This comes with a US News cite that says as much.
5. Duke: "The 2006 edition of US News and World Report ranked Duke as the fifth best American college tied with Stanford."

As there is no cite for the "best university" statement, I am going to alter the first sentence of the Academics statement to be purely factual. This is consistent with the other entries. Dothivalla 20:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This is also consistent because the quote for what not to do in terms of "academic boosterism" was taken directly out of this article. This article needs a huge edit to conform to NPOV policies. There is bad wikistyle all over, and academic boosterism abounds. Scm83x 23:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Bolstered by Scm83x, I must say that large amounts of the Academics section are either out of date or irrelevent. The fastest growing campus back in 2002, or the number of study abroad students back in 1999 come to mind. None of these claims have any cites either, leading me to lean towards deleting them. If anyone wants these bullets to survive please CITE them and keep them relevent to the article.Dothivalla 08:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The fastest growing Uni claim is obviously no longer true. Enrollment has shrunk since the 2002 statistic came out. I am taking it out. Dothivalla 09:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Architecture Claims

None of the Architecture claims have any citations. Furthermore, the claims do not match the wiki page for the Architecture School. As the Architecture School's wiki casts doubt on whether the school is even accredited I am deleting the claims. If someone wants to put the claims back on PLEASE CITE.Dothivalla 09:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The Las Americas Architecture claim of being the largest network in the world is not mentioned anywhere under the cite, nor on the about page: http://archfile.tamu.edu/college/academics/inter/initiative.html I am removing the claim Dothivalla 17:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm personally dubious about the statement that "The clock faces of Albritton Tower bear the Roman numeral IIII rather than IV because Mr. Albritton believed that IV bore too much resemblance to "t.u.", Texas A&M's rival". It's been standard practice to represent 4 o'clock in Roman numerals this way for several hundred years, so it's possible Mr Albritton was speaking tongue-in-cheek. A reference would clear it up ... Daen 02:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Library Claims

The article claims that A&M has a top ten library. No citation is given.

1. Princeton Review does not show A&M in the top five: http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/rankings/rankings.asp
2. The 2001 rankings show A&M missing from the top 20: http://www.knox.edu/x996.xml
3. A&M's own vision document shows A&M considers itself "unranked". See Page 8: http://www.tamu.edu/vision2020/baseline/baseline.pdf

I am removing the Claim.

I am glad I removed the Claim. See the rankings here: http://www.libraryspot.com/lists/listlargestlibs.htm A&M ranks #91 Dothivalla 02:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have some difficulties with reading. The article never claimed that A&M has a "top ten library." The article claimed that its collections in Engineering & Technology, Military and Naval Science, Nautical Archaeology, Oceanography and Transportation were among the top ten. Also, you are citing an article from NEARLY TEN YEARS AGO that shows the SIZE of the library as a whole. Next time, before you delete sections, research the actual claim instead of how you misread the claim. I will fix this in the near future and include citations. Figharrrburt 06:25, 23 May 2006

Corps of Cadets Claims

The article currently states: "Texas A&M is also host to one of the most reknowned ROTC programs in the United States with the Texas A&M University Corps of Cadets." No citation is given. The Corps Wiki page does not make this claim either. After pouring over the Corp's official web-pages I can never find them make this claim. I have found them claim that they are the biggest ROTC program in the US See: http://www.aggiecorps.org/home/about/ I will change the page accordingly.

Dothivalla, please slow down with all of the edits. The big-scale changes to this page are becoming over-the-top and some of them are unnecessary. This last one is common knowledge and I'm not an Aggie (as many who edit this page) nor a Longhorn (as yourself). If you're going to put something in the discussion, please discuss before editing to give time for people to respond. --Claygate 20:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Claygate for adding several of the citations to the "World" section. My biggest issue with this article is that it had a lot of far-fetched claims about A&M that were completely false(fulbright scholars, B-school ranking, etc). An encyclopedia entry must back up its comparitive quality assertions with citations. The claim that A&M has one of the most reknowned ROTC programs in the US fits in this category. I am not saying that the corp isn't good, I am sure its great. But to make a comparitive claim like this we need to see some sort of backing that indicates that the Corp is much more honored, revered, and succesful than other ROTC programs. Being a Texan like yourself, I know that the Corp has a special place in a lot of people's hearts, I wanted to make sure that the entry still pointed out something special about the corp. So I replaced the line with the factual mention that the corp is the nation's largest ROTC program. This way the corp is still recognized as being special, and the integrity of the article is still maintained. I am not the only one who believes this. The corps describes itself as "the largest uniformed body of students in the nation outside the U.S. service academies," Not the most reknowned. That's why I felt confident making the change.Dothivalla 02:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying and appreciate the explanation. Perhaps "reknowned" was a an overly-subjective entry and maybe someone else can supply a citation. I was having some trouble keeping up with your edits ;). --Claygate 04:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

All - Regarding the term "renowned," I think this is more than appropriate. Just ask anyone in the military. The facts also bear this out. The George patton quote "Give me an army of West Point graduates, I'll win a battle. Give me a handful of Texas Aggies and I'll win a war", along with a bunch of other data, like the large number of flag officers, the corps' large production of officers during every conflict since the spanish american war (A&M produced more officers during Vietnam than any other university), outpace every other ROTC program in the country with the exception of the military academies. In fact, the formation of the ROTC program itself is largely due to the war department's recognition of A&M's contributions during the national pacificist movements of the early 1900s (the war department sent staff and equipment to A&M while other colleges were steeped in anti-military policy). The list of medal of honor recipients, distinguished cross, attest to the contributions of A&M in military service. Take a look at the book "Texas Aggies go to War" or any of several books by Stephen Ambrose and you will find many references to back up a claim to "renowned." -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chuckmccullough (talk • contribs) .

On Wikipedia, we prefer to state facts and let the readers make their own conclusions. The facts that you stated are valid if cited but the words renowned, prestigious, or any other connotating high praise (or negative terms) are unnecessary. If the user reads the article, the data will speak for itself, either positively or negatively. As a side note, please mind the timestamp when commenting; this discussion ended six months ago. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 08:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Scm83x I guess since you also added to this discussion, it is current again. The word "renowned" means celebrated, widely acclaimed and honored. That is not a conclusion, but a fact. Following your logic, we can't say that tu is a large university, and rather should just report the enrollment and let the reader draw their own conclusion.

I don't think that's a fair comparison. UT is large because you can quantitatively compare it to other universities. You can't do that with the word "renowned." It has a positive connotation that prohibits the readers from making their own conclusions. -Texink 22:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, Texink. Quanititative comparisons are simple. It is factual and NPOV to call Tokyo a large city, because it is the twelfth largest city in the world. But it is POV to call it the greatest city in the world. You can't make qualitative comparisons like "renowned" on Wikipedia without displaying a POV. It's that simple. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 23:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Kyle Field Claims

Currently the article states: "Kyle Field is considered by many to rank among the nation's premiere football facilities." I am replacing this line with "recently ranked as the fourth best college football stadium by the Sporting News." See: http://www.msnbc.com/modules/sports/collegefootballstadiums/ This is part of my overall effort at removing subjective claims from this page and replacing with factual ones. Dothivalla 16:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Very nice move. Johntex\^talk 20:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"A&M"

This article doesn't seem to mention anywhere that "A&M" stands for Agricultural and Mechanical.Rdore 05:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

A&M does not actually stand for anything anymore. — Scm83x ^talk 07:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It should be mentioned as etymology though, otherwise the letters seem random. I thought I worked on a history section at one point, but it seems to be missing now? Stan 14:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it should be mentioned somewhere. The "agricultural & mechanical" designation has historical significance in that it was one of a handful of A&M land grant colleges established specifically for promoting those disciplines. Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 16:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This definitely needs to be included - I looked up this page specifically to find out where the A&M came from! icrutt 11:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, will add it in with the historical context noted. --Claygate 12:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Reveille

There seems to be some debate over whether the mascot is the Texas Aggie or Reveille. Although I suppose Texas Aggie is in some sense a mascot because it provides the team name, Reveille really is the official mascot of Texas A&M Unigersity.

Yes, Reveille is the official mascot, at games and appearances, etc. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 21:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I reverted an edit that changed this. Something as follows might be appropriate if Reveille is the official mascot: Official mascot: Reveille, teams referred to as Texas Aggies. btm _talk 09:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I propose that Texas A&M University College of Medicine be merged into this article. See Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages for more information. --AaronS 01:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

There's not much to merge, but there is plenty of room for expansion of the Texas A&M University College of Medicine article. Individual colleges are notable enough to have their own article, so it should not be merged. It's just that this one needs time to be expanded. btm _talk 02:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point as some of the other sub-colleges of the Health Sciences Center such as Baylor College of Dentistry have more complete articles. --Claygate 00:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Does the college of medicine really need its own article under WP:NOT a webiste? I'm sure they have their own site. Thatcher131 08:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The College of Medicine is administratively separate from Texas A&M University at College Station, despite being located on the College Station campus. It is part of the Texas A&M University Health Science Center, a separate, full member of the TAMU system. Confusing? Yes. Does the College of Medicine deserve its own page? Maybe. Should it be merged to this page? No, it should be merged with the TAMUHSC page if a merger is deemed required. Source -- [1] --Ntmg05 02:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

East Texas Counties

Lately a few users have tried to quietly delete the East Texas counties reference from the opening paragraph. I originally added the line because the para had included a statement about the TAMU president working very hard to improve diversity at the school. This line is based on Gates' efforts around the Vision 2020 program[1], and specifically the the third of four pillars he is currently pushing "Diversifying and Globalizing our student body." The document provides a link back to the TAMU staistical factbook and its current enrollment numbers. You don't try to improve diversity in a vacuum, you increase it because you are unhappy with your current student composition. The East Texas county reference comes straight from the TAMU factbook and should remain as long as the reference to diversity recruiting is there. Dothivalla 13:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I have several questions about this comment: 1) Is it really needed? Not every little thing from the university factbook is needed in the article. 2) Many of the counties listed - with the exception of the local pull from Brazos - are simply the most populous in Texas. Is providing this link to show that people from such counties make up a large percentage of the student body at a Texas state school really that surprising? 3) Finally, the statement (to me, at least) inferrs (by virtue of the phrase "primarily from") that more than 50% of the student body comes from counties in "east Texas." The link certainly does not prove this (and, actually, disproves it). I'm not one of the ones who has been deleting this, but I think all of these issues are relevant (and I do think it should be taken out). -- EdisonLBM 17:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not certain if this was made in response to my above questions or not, but an anon user made a change to this statement making it even more obtuse (in an attempt, I suppose, to actually make it factual). However, the cite only accounts for 21,513 students of a university that, during the year in question, had over 44,000 students enrolled, and, as such, even a statement that somehow universally included all of the counties in the cite's listing would still be inadequate. I agree with Dothivalla above - there should be some sort of "counter statement" to the overly positive one about Dr. Gates recruiting initiatives, however, it needs to be a factually correct one. I'm going to remove the incorrect data from the encyclopedia and start searching for a quote from Dr. Gates (or something from the Vision 2020 office) that includes both statements - the current lack of diversity and the desire to change that. Would that be acceptable for all? -- EdisonLBM 23:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds acceptable, maybe cite some trends in the data for the last few years? --Claygate 01:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I went, I looked, I didn't find anything that was sufficiently (I thought) NPOV - I think what the anon changed the article to is about as good as we are going to get. The anon change combines the diversity statement with some others a provides a good cite. Since this is a touchy issue with some, I thought it was worth asking (for the second time, I suppose): does this work for everyone? -- EdisonLBM 05:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Some people are sensitive to a traditional Aggie put-down... that all Aggies are from the rural, "backwoods" East Texas area. Regardless of whether that is true or not, I think it's irrelevant. Saying that X% of A&M students are from East Texas is like saying X% of Southern Cal students are from southern California. It should be fairly implicit that many, if not most, students at a university are from the same general area. I wouldn't object to making a notation when a school is noted as being unusually diverse or unusually homogenic, but the available statistics show that A&M is neither of those. If it's still deemed necessary that A&M's article include a line about it's students being from East Texas, then I recommend that all university pages be edited to specify where their student body originates from, even when it's plainly obvious.

As for official publications stating an administration goal to diversify the university, again, I think it's implicit that the point is to increase the number of non-Texas students. To be fair, I think adding the East Texas reference in this context would be acceptable. Just to clarify the difference: "Texas A&M has XX,XXX students, primarily from East Texas" is irrelevant to me; "Texas A&M has a stated goal of diversifying the mostly Texan student body to include students from other states and nations" would still be somewhat redundant but not nearly as "touchy" with those who object to the East Texas label. --Ntmg05 00:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Rather than an edit war of "sips" versus "ags" why not discuss which pictures should be there and which are not. Wholesale revert by 67.79.2.98 took out some others contributions that had nothing to do with the pictures. Maybe as a compromise, make some of the pictures as smaller thumbnails? --Claygate 23:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not reverting the pictures aditions as a "sip". I just think that they make the page look too... "touristy"? I'm not sure what the right word is, but the huge pictures just distract from the text. They make the page look too much like a campus guide. Thumbnails are the correct solution. Also, when I use the word relevant, I mean: The picture is only relevant if the subjet is mentioned in the text. Someone should make sure that this is true for all of these shots. It should be noted that I was attacked rather harshly by the anon IP 67.79.2.98 and I would like to believe that his views are not representative of the Aggies who help maintain this page. I welcome Aggie contributions to any UT page, and I'd like to point out that I started the Traditions of Texas A&M University page because I thought it was notable enough that it deserved its own page! These pictures are great, but are all of them really necessary? Thanks. — Scm83x ^talk 21:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Scm83x for the discussion and suggestions, and agreed that these pages don't "belong" to any group but rather should be enhanced for those that come to the pages for information. Having many large images can also be bad for those on dialups as it adds to the "weight" of the page. Can one of the picture contributors please convert to smaller thumbnails and enhance the captions? --Claygate 00:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, as an Aggie, I would like to second Scm83x's opinion about the pictures - "touristy" describes it quite nicely, I think, actually. I'm going to leave a note on the talk page of the user that added them asking him to come back and actually engage in a rational discussion - optimistic, I suppose, but I'm going to give it a shot. I'm going to leave the pictures up until we come to a conclusion in an attempt to maintain good feelings. -- EdisonLBM 01:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey all, first off, let me apologize to Scm83x, at the time I was under the impression that you were just trying to get rid of the pictures to decrease the quality of another schools site, I was wrong and Im sorry. As for the pictures themselves, I look at it like this: Aggies dont see much in them since we see these places every day, but for some kid whos interested in A&M who comes to our page, it gives a nice impression of campus. I do honestly think Wikipedia can be seen as a chance to present a positive image of Texas A&M not just to Aggies but to anyone who just happens to visit. As far as relevancy, I dont believe that the picture has to be about something explicitly mentioned in the article. I would be fine with reducing the size of the pictures but I dont think they should be deleted.

I think that your reasoning (and the Wikipeida policy against it) is well covered in "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" on WP:NOT. Honestly, while your concerns are legitimate, I don't think that even simply reducing the size of the images is acceptable - some of them, at least, have to go off the main TAMU page. I propose (a) keeping the most important/notable ones (admin bldg, main campus overview, maybe another general campus pic) with, perhaps some shrinking and moving to format the article better. (b) moving a second group to other pages (for example, Fish Pond is mentioned in the traditions page (although only in passing) - perhaps an addition to that page explaining what the pond means and the story of the class of '38 would work nice? Sully is mentioned on the "people" page, and his statue might find a home there.. things along those lines). (c) finally, some of these have got to go - Cain park is hardly 10 years old, and while the eagle makes a nice picture, it is nothing more than that. Cain park, Scoates Hall (sorry, I may be biased here, I've always thought that was an ugly building) and Rudder Fountain are my least favorite. If you want to add some TAMU pictures to Wikipedia, I think you made a curious choice - a picture of RWB out on the traditions page is something that I think is seriously lacking, for instance (but I don't know of any non-copyrighted ones). A photo tour of campus would, I think, be a fine link, but the encyclopedia article is a bad place to put it. -- EdisonLBM 04:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, Wikipedia is not obliged to present anything in a positive manner. In fact, we try not to take sides either way. If a high school senior wants to know more about A&M, I think they'd have good sense to go to TAMU.edu, and not Wikipedia. — Scm83x ^talk 04:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an Aggie, nor an anti-Aggie (though in full disclosure I went to a university with an ag college... but I digress). I have, however, seen way more than my fair share of Wikipedia college articles... and that's way too many photos. It's just not very appealing to the eye. I'd really recommend getting rid of at least half those photos, and alternating the placement of them through the article. I also know enough not to get involved in other Wikiepedian's edit warring, but it looks like you guys could use an independent outside opinion here. Regards, JDoorjam Talk 05:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it is done. The community consensus, based on this discussion, definitely seems to favor removal and shrinking of the images, and so I went ahead and did that. Any questions as to why I kept the ones that I did or removed others can certainly be asked - I would think it useless to list my individual reasoning for every image, but anyone who wishes to make a case for re-inclusion of one of the images I removed is certainly welcome to do so. -- EdisonLBM 22:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, the current version looks good and overall layout is much improved. --Claygate 01:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Notable Facilities and Notable Buildings

Shouldn't these sections be merged? I'm gonna put them togeather. --Anon

Okay, put them togeather, it makes more sense to list all buildings in one place. --Anon

To Do List

I put up a list (as you have likely noticed by this point), and if you feel the urge to take on a task, great. Mostly, though, I'm just looking for a complete list at this point. Where, really, do you think the article needs to be actually improved (as opposed to just patching up NPOV and uncited claims)? I'm hoping that a complete list will help us find a place to start, I suppose. --EdisonLBM 06:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Flagship

A&M is certainly its system's flagship. There's no need for a fact tag; a simple Google search reveals plenty of corroborating links. "Google: Texas A&M University flagship" ([2] [3]) · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear that that's a type of university though, is it? "Really good" would also be an accurate modifier

and has google hits, but is not an official moniker. Is "flagship"? I'm looking for a reputable source that not only says A&M is a "flagship" university (easy) but which also explains that "flagship" has a particular, official meaning that differentiates A&M from other schools. JDoorjam Talk 22:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite widely recognized as a term in academia and academic management. I don't know that there's any "official" definition (maybe there is, but I don't know); it's used quite often to indicate, particularly, a large system's most prominent university (which is also usually a "tier one" research university, obviously possessing a lot of research capacity, distinguished faculty etc.) Here's an interesting speech William Cunningham gave about making University of Houston into Texas' next flagship [4] · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 23:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The "flagship" refers to the fact that it's the lead university in a system of several universities in the Texas A&M University System of schools. The definition comes from naval usage in which the ship that contained the admiral would signal other ships in the fleet about the pending action of the fleet by running up signal flags. It doesn't really have a slant towards quality and therefore fits as a "type". --Claygate 01:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

With respect, it does denote quality, else every system would have a "flagship" institution. The University of Houston main campus is its largest/most prominent campus, yet it's not considered a "flagship" university because its research isn't robust enough, nor is its faculty. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 03:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

See, because when I googled "flagship" and "Texas A&M", I kept getting hits that referred to A&M and Houston as the flagship universities of the Texas universities. And this is why I was hoping that there's a source out there saying that "flagship" denotes something official, distinct, and perhaps measurable, rather than being a solely qualitative statement. As for Claygate's comments: how, precisely, does A&M serve in a capacity to "signal" other universities? Again, is this an official designation, or simply an observation? What differentiates Texas A&M's flagship status from that of, say, U.C. Berkeley? JDoorjam Talk 03:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It signals them with "A&M Expects that all system universities will do their duty..." --Claygate 19:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the Cunningham link above does a good job of answering whether it's a commonly-understood phrase. A&M and Berkeley are both "flagships" (along with UT) because they're "tier one" research universities. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 03:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand what the term means, and do not argue that it applies to A&M. I guess what I'm getting at is, is it distinct enough a type to go in the infobox? I mean, public/private/military/whatever I'm missing, that's pretty clear-cut. "Flagship" seems far more descriptive than any other term I've seen in any other college infoboxes. I could see it being used in the body of the text—"Texas A&M is considered a flagship public university^[5]]"—but it simply doesn't seem to fit in the infobox. Do you see where I'm coming from on this? JDoorjam Talk 03:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite a few schools have Flagship in their infobox (I did a quick search and both OSU and UT have that information in the infobox as well, for example). I've always thought of it as a way of saying "really big university with a pretty heavy research orientation".. or something along those lines; point being, I think there is a relevant difference between a flagship state institution and a non-flagship institution (Katefan touched on this above), and such information has a place in the infobox. Making an article titled Flagship (academia) or something like that might be a good idea to better expand on what is meant by it. - EdisonLBM 05:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

These all sound like logical and reasonable points, though I still think it would be good (for the article's sake) to find some reference out there that says "a flagship university is ______", which I guess an article on the term would take care of, in order to prevent edit sparring down the road. (If nothing else you can now revert the deletion of the term and say, authoritatively, "Rv. See talk.") Cheers all, JDoorjam Talk 05:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I found an interesting speech (given at Texas A&M) that discusses what academics mean by "flagship university." The speaker said this:

What do we mean by the term "flagship" universities? The term applies, in all the cases I can think of, to the fully mature public universities serving most of states. In most cases, these institutions were the first public universities to be established in their states. Many of what we now call the flagship campuses were established in the extraordinary period of university building that took place in the United States in the roughly three decades from the mid-1850s to the mid-1880s. Many came into being after the Morrill Act of 1863 provided the federal grants of land to the states to establish public universities. Some states built two institutions, a land-grant college focused on agriculture and the "mechanical arts" as well as general education, and another more directed at classical education and the other professions. For example, Michigan, Indiana, Iowa, Washington, and Texas, among others, built separate institutions, while Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio, and California combined the land-grant and liberal arts function on a single campus. These institutions formed the core of the public systems of higher education in their respective states. State teachers colleges, later evolving into regional state colleges or universities, formed the rest of the higher education institutions in most states.

But it was always clear that the one or two institutions that were the original land-grant or public universities in the states were the flagships--the leaders--even though they may not have been referred to as such. They became the centers for research and graduate education and they developed an array of professional schools that added to their size, scope, and pre-eminence.

The term "flagship" universities came to be associated with these institutions primarily after the Second World War, largely in the 1960s, when the country underwent its second enormous expansion of higher education. During this period two things happened. First, in many states, branch campuses of the primary universities were established in the cities. The original university builders had been suspicious of the cities, with their sinful distractions, so most early university campuses were located in rural, bucolic settings.

This gives a good indication about what is meant by the term, although I don't think we yet have enough good sources to create a separate article like flagship university without bordering on original research. btm _talk 06:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, long time lurker but I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents. It seems that there has almost become 2 seperate categories of "flag ship" universities. Schools like the Universities of Houston and North Texas believe they are flag ship schools because they are the largest/most important institutions in their systems, even though their systems are quite small compared to the A&M and UT systems (particularly UNT's). On the other hand, A&M and UT consider themselves flagship schools of both their system and, more importantly, the state of Texas itself. Part of the problem arises over the term "State" in the category since in that context it means a public, flagship school but not nesecarily a state level flagship school. Because they are close together, it looks like "State Flagship School" for both kinds of universities. I propose that the term be changed to "Public, State Flagship School" for A&M and UT and "Public, System Flagship School" for UNT and UH. This has the benefit of allowing both categories to keep their deserving "flagship' status while helping to clarify what is actually meant by the term in regards to each schools mission. Obviously this will meet with much resistance from the UH and UNT schools because they wish to present themselves on the same level of A&M and UT even though everyone knows that isnt the case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TxAg0523 (talk • contribs) .

It isn't up to us to pass judgement on which "flagship" is more important. These changes should not be made. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 09:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The term "flagship" has two meanings. First, it is correctly used to designate the largest or most important university within a university system. The other more common meaning generally refers to universities that have a significant national reputation and annual research expenditures exceeding $100 million. Thus, UT-Austin is both the flagship of the UT system and a flagship university for the state of Texas. UNT-Denton is the flagship of the UNT system, but it is not a tier-one research university, thus it is not a flagship university for the state of Texas. If UNT refers to itself as a flagship in the context of being the primary UNT system campus, that is a correct usage of the term. If UNT refers to itself as being a flagship university like UT or A&M in that it too is a tier-one research university, that is incorrect. I'm not aware of any instances where a university other than UT or A&M has officially referred to itself as a flagship in that context.

It should be noted that the tier-one meaning is somewhat subjective and is mainly useful as a tool for fundraising (i.e. UH's campaign to increase research dollars by convincing donors "shouldn't UH be a flagship university, too?") and "bragging rights." There is no governing body or legal definition that I'm aware of which determines who is officially a tier-one "flagship" research university. If you're a university that spends $100 million on research and you are generally well regarded, you're a flagship. Additionally, if someone says "Texas needs more flagship universities," they generally mean that the non-tier-one university they are referring to should work to improve their national reputation and increase their research funding/expenditures. Ntmg05 02:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Aggie War Hymn

Hello, I was surprised that (1) this article makes no mention of the Aggie War Hymn and that (2) Wikipedia has no article on the Aggie War Hymn. I know it is briefly mentioned at traditions of Texas A&M University, but it seems to me it is worthy of mentioning here, and also worthy of its own article. Anyways, I noticed that Wikisource has the lyrics. Therefore, I added {{Wikisourcecat}} to the "traditions" article. If the song makes it into this article, we may want to add that template here also. Johntex\^talk 08:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What is A & M ?

What a pity ?

Those scholars who wrote on TEXAS A & M failed miserably to explain what A & M stands for. Is there any explanation that it stands for Texas Agriculture and Mechanical University. What are the authors assuming about the readers that it is presumed everybody knew what A & M universtally stands for.

This is disappointing that scholar after scholar who wrote this page ignored this fact.

I say , put it as the first line. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.67.140.83 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 2006 March 31 (UTC)

• This is covered in the history section of the article. Those letters formerly stood for Agriculter and Mechanical, but they no longer do. Now they are just letters. This is similar to AT&T, which used to stand for American Telephone and Telegraph, but now its just AT&T. As the institutions outgrew the words the letters stood for, they threw away the words and just kept the letters. Johntex\^talk 16:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Specifically, from the article: "The college opened for classes in 1876 as the "Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas". In 1963 the legislature change the name to "Texas A&M University" to reflect the expanded roles and academic offerings of the university." — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 17:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Rankings

Is this true " Texas A&M University is currently ranked 60th in the United States and tied for 21st among public universities1. It is ranked as the 25th "Best Value for a Public School" in the nation, and the best value in the state of Texas[1] " ?Alhoori

1) (general ranking claim) : [6]

2) (best value claim) : [7].

The references in this article as a whole do need help, and that statement did need a minor touch up (which has been done), but it is now factually correct. - EdisonLBM 04:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this for undergrad or grad Alhoori

Bonfire tragedy

The Texas A&M University bonfire disaster is used in university disaster management courses world-wide as a case study of urban heavy rescue and search and rescue methodology in general. I do have some material that I could use to write an article. Before starting I would like to hear some comments from the readers here as to whether it is a good idea. --Drdan 20:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There is an existing article called Aggie Bonfire that discusses the event. You could probably just add to that article, or if the material doesn't fit there then start a new one from that article. --Claygate 23:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will have a look at it! --Drdan 07:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Athletics page

A separate athletics page should be up soon with the name "Texas Aggie Athletics." It's going to be in need of editing/expansion/deletion of the material if anyone is interested, but a decent outline of the page will be there to work with. When it's up, I will remove some of the unnecessary athletic material from this page (notably the conference titles list.) --Texink 19:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Well done, Texink! Johntex\^talk 06:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Changes

I made a few photo changes, mainly decreasing their size to make them less dominating over the text. I also moved the Academic Building up to academics to have a more even distribution of photos across the entire article. There was also a sentence about a specific fraternity that I removed. That seems to me to be a slippery slope; we can't mention every fraternity and sorority in this article. I hope no one has a problem with the changes - if anyone does, please mention it. -Texink 23:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the changes to the text - nicely done. For the images, I reccommend not specifying a size unless there is a really compelling reason to do so. The guideline on images is to ommitt the size parameter - this way, the user's preferences in their Wikipedia options will determine the size. This allows the user to pick a default size suitable for thier monitor, their eyesight, etc. Its a guideline, not a policy, but I think it is a good idea. Johntex\^talk 00:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Motto

I wonder if "A Unique American Institution" is A&M's motto. This can be seen on the main website (www.tamu.edu). Does anyone know if it is? --Blueag9 16:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if there's much of a difference, but that's more a slogan, used just for advertising. Doesn't really fit with other school's official mottos that mention education and light and all that jazz. -Texink 17:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)