![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
hi, not sure where to ask this, but if you add up the number of students (37357 + 5364 + 3314), you end up with 505 less students than the total number of students listed. does anyone know why?
(initial post from GregZ copied from BQZip01's talk page) All the rest aside The Texas A&M University System recognizes 1876 as the official date of establishment of Texas A&M as is clearly shown here: http://www.tamus.edu/univ/tamu.html. Why can you not allow the facts to be shown on the page?
"The Texas A&M University System—although not officially recognized as such until 1948—got its start in 1876, with the establishment of the state’s first public college, the land-grant Agricultural and Mechanical College (A&M) in College Station."
This is the exact quote from the Texas A&M University System History page. It clearly states that the first public college in Texas was established in 1876. We know that Texas' first public college was TAMC, currently Texas A&M, therefore Texas A&M was established in 1876.
The Texas State legislature set aside money in 1871 for the formation a public college. Texas AMC did not come into being as a state university until 1876, most importantly: 1876 is the year that Texas A&M claims its origin. If you continue to disagree, I would suggest that you Consult the Official Seal of the University where the year 1876 is clearly displayed in the manner that is traditionally reserved on a seal for an establishment or founding year.
Senate bill # 276 April 17 1871 house passes a bill entitled: "An act to provide for the Establishment of the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas." That Provision was money ($75,000, if you look further into it), which would later be used to establish the College. If you look at the wording of previous acts they are all stated in an "active" manner, For Example:"act to incorporate 'X'" & "Act to Authorize 'Y'," or in A&M's case "Act to Provide for 'Z'." The act authorizes the providing of $75,000 so that the College could be established, nothing more.
The wording of the bill was copied exactly from page 1073 of the official record of the 12th Legislature of the state of Texas, if you would like to verify
If that is not enough follow this link to another page in The Texas A&M University System website and see when they consider A&M to have been established... http://www.tamus.edu/univ/tamu.html
so please allow the proper year of establishment to show on the page, prospective students commonly use wikipedia to research their University options and it would be a shame for Texas A&M's page to be erroneous —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregzeppelin ( talk • contribs) 04:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
If the date of Establishment is the date which an institution chooses to recognize as its beginning, then the choice is not up to us at all but rather Texas A&M. And clearly with 1876 showing on the official Seal, and 1876 clearly claimed as the Date of Establishment on the Texas A&M University System's history page on Texas A&M University College Station. Texas A&M chooses to recognize 1876 as its beginning, and thus this is the date that should be displayed on the page. I trust this forum will do the right thing and post the appropriate year. I will not do so, so as not to become a nuisance to the page, as that is the last thing I want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregzeppelin ( talk • contribs) 01:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually primary sources are allowable as long as you "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." there is clearly no analyzing necessary to discern that The Texas A&M University System (a very reliable primary source) considers A&M to have been established in 1876. please see this page. http://www.tamus.edu/overview/about.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregzeppelin ( talk • contribs) 01:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
My vote is to stick with 1871 as the establishment date. → Wordbuilder ( talk) 03:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, if we want to argue non-independent sources, see this A&M page from the 06-07 catalog [1] which states: until the establishment of the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas by act of the Twelfth Texas Legislature on April 17, 1871. The school (if not the system) appears to accept the wording in this article. Karanacs ( talk) 03:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
t.u.'s establishment date of 1883 is the year that they began to teach classes. The Texas State Legislature established t.u. by legislative action in 1858. (
http://www.texasalmanac.com/history/highlights/universities/)
If we choose to go by legislative establishments, even though A&M was established by the legislature in 1871, it would lose the honored distinction of being the first public institution of higher learning in Texas. Because it would be necessary to consider t.u.'s establishment date as the legislative date for uniformity's sake. Also since A&M is considered by a general consensus to the be oldest public university in Texas, wouldn't that imply that the establishment dates of public Texas University's be the date classes started? Otherwise t.u. would have a general consensus as being the oldest... Gregzeppelin ( talk) 05:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
This may be small, but while we're sitting on here discussing dates, the section of the article regarding Sully is erroneous. It says "Upon his death in 1898, a statue was erected in front of what is now Academic Plaza to honor Ross and his achievements in the history of the school." To me that implies that it was immediately following his death. This contradicts the Sul Ross article that says "Within weeks of Ross's death former cadets at Texas AMC began gathering funds for a monument. In 1917, the state appropriated $10,000 for the monument, and 2 years later a 10 foot (3 m) bronze statue of Ross, sculpted by Pompeo Coppini, was unveiled at the center of the Texas AMC campus." I know FOR A FACT that there is an inscription on the statues itself IIRC, on the rear portion of the left side with three numbers for a date (one obscured) and Coppini's name. Txtimetraveler ( talk) 20:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)txtimetraveler
I haven't checked on this article for a while. The AggieSat section has been greatly expanded. AggieSat itself isn't that central to TAMU. outside of the engineering department, many haven't even heard of it. I think stub article could be created with the current text with a few modifications:
(removed because fuller version reinserted later into topic Oldag07 ( talk) 20:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC))
As for undergraduate research, the paragraph should be extended or completely removed. Engineering is certainly not the only undergraduate research opportunity at the school. Aggiesat is certainly not the only undergradate program of note. TAMU Undergraduate research. even as a pure engineering standpoint, the human submarine program is also of note. Human submarine
We probably need to mention this to Hut101. Gig em! Oldag07 ( talk) 12:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, i am looking more into this. AggieSat redirects to the TAMU page. I think the University Nanosatellite Program should have a page, and just mention that Aggiesat is part of it. TAMU isn't even the only school with a Nanosat program. if aggiesat were to be mentioned, I feel it should be 1)shorter, 2) in the student life section labeled as an engineering competition not pure "research" Oldag07 ( talk) 13:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
This was removed: Original paragraph
Besides postgraduates, undergraduate students also have many research opportunities, including AggieSat, a student organization established by the Aerospace Department to build student satellites with NASA and the Air Force Research Lab. Approximately 25 undergraduate students representing 7 majors are involved, with assistance from graduates students in both engineering and business. While graduate students manage AggieSat Lab on a daily basis, undergraduates are responsible for designing and building the actual satellites. Current projects include competing against several universities in Nanosat-5, an Air Force competition for constructing autonomous satellites, and a joint project with NASA and the University of Texas to develop two Cube Satellites for autonomous rendezvous and docking. [1] Currently the second project, AggieSat2 is scheduled for launch on-board Space Shuttle Endeavour, mission STS-127, around May 2009. [2]
I took out co-education from the first sentence of the lead since I think it's a trivial distinction. The vast majority of colleges and universities are co-educational, both in America and the world at large, so it's not as important to assert this distinction at the start of the article as it is for its funding status (private, public, etc.) or type (research university, liberal arts school, etc.). BQZip observes that A&M used to be single sex and that warrants inclusion in the lead. By that metric, we should also include "racially integrated" ;) Madcoverboy ( talk) 23:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Like Aggiesat, Hillel, is in my opinion not notable enough to be on the main TAMU page.
Texas A&M Hillel, the oldest Hillel organization in the United States, was founded in 1920 at the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas (now Texas A&M). The organization occurred three years before the national Hillel Foundation was organized at University of Illinois. [3] [4]
it seems like it was copied and pasted. - was founded in 1920 at the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas (now Texas A&M) Oldag07 ( talk) 20:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Removed Phi Beta Kappa:
In 2004, the honors organization Phi Beta Kappa opened its 265th chapter at Texas A&M. [5]
Oldag07 ( talk) 20:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I would say Hillel could stay considering it's the oldest (that's something unique). The other two should go. — BQZip01 — talk 21:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Also in 2004, Texas A&M joined a consortium of universities to build the Giant Magellan Telescope in Chile. With seven mirrors, each with a diameter of 8.4 meters (9.2 yd), the optical telescope will have the equivalent of a 24.5 meters (26.8 yd) primary mirror. With construction slated to be complete in 2016, it will be the largest optical telescope ever constructed and ten times more powerful than the Hubble Space Telescope. [6] With the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration, Texas A&M's nuclear research reactor became the first to convert uranium reactor fuel from a highly enriched form to a low-enriched safer form. Completed on October 13, 2006, the process of depleting the uranium from 70% enrichment to 20% enrichment finalized an 18-month, joint project. This accomplishment fulfilled a portion of U.S. President George W. Bush’s Global Nuclear Threat Reduction Initiative. [7]
I feel that these section are also too specialized for this particular page. maybe they should be moved to the engineering section. maybe with aggiesat. Oldag07 ( talk) 20:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
The block ATM is most associated with the university while the seal is the offical seal of the University. Both have their place under fair use. By omitting the block ATM, you are removing the single most identifying logo associated with the University. By removing the seal, you are removing the sole official seal of the university. Harvard has the same logo for both, but other schools have more than one. Minimal use for identification is appropriate an no criterion of WP:NFCC prohibits their use. — BQZip01 — talk 08:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
5 featured university articles operating under the same logic. Those were randomly picked. Oldag07 ( talk) 15:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I gave y'all a shout out at the de-guideline-ified WP:BOOSTER ;) Madcoverboy ( talk) 23:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Added a paragraph about conservatism of our beloved university. I was going to put it in our student life page until i gave up on that. that being said, I think it is an important part of the university, and i am putting it in the student life profile section of this page.
Oldag07 (
talk)
05:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The lead sentence says "Texas A&M University, often called A&M or TAMU, is a coeducational public research university located in College Station, Texas." - Where's the United States? A&M is located in the U.S., isn't it? If the US is absent from the lead sentence, then where would it come from if it is described later?
If a university from Burkina Faso should mention the country in its lead section, then a university from the United States should too. As we know we need to have a Worldwide View of a subject, so that means treating all countries equally.
As for the idea of saying "Texas A&M is an American university," (as a way of describing A&M as of the United States) that doesn't necessarily imply connections with the federal government (there are none) - After all just because a person is American or a style of cooking is American doesn't mean it is in cahoots with the federal government. Why would it be any different regarding a university? WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
WhisperToMe ( talk) 02:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that this conversation should be held in a wider venue such as WP:UNI to solicit more widespread participation given the precedent that would be set if we agreed that "United States" should be added to the lead? -- ElKevbo ( talk) 04:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion one way or another on whether the words "United States" should be added to the lead. I would request that if added they not be wikilinked, however, because that is likely an overlinking issue. Karanacs ( talk) 14:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
After visiting campus this past weekend, I feel that the massive campus construction projects should have a blurb on this page. I have already expanded the Campus of Texas A&M University page. How about:
Following the completion of a comprehensive Campus master plan, the Texas A&M campus has entered an expansion phase with some of the largest construction projects the intuition's history underway. In 2007, 700 million dollars of construction projects have been planned or already underway in the Bryan College Station area. To fund this expansion, the university is relying on state funding, donations, fees and tuition revenue bonds to cover costs. [8]
We can also elaborate, maybe not here on tuition deregulation, maybe? or maybe just in the history section. Thoughts? Oldag07 ( talk) 07:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Considering the last significant clean up effort on this page was almost two years so, I checked with the link checker, and we seem to have several dead links. If anybody would like to help me clean up, this link checker is a great place to start. Oldag07 ( talk) 04:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I tried to rewrite the SAT section.
The middle 50% of the freshmen had an average SAT scores of : in critical reading, 520 - 630, math, 560 - 670, and writing 500 - 610. As for ACT test, the middle 50% freshmen class at Texas A&M scored between a 23 and 29.
to fix a dead link. This is the new source [2].
Adding the high scores and the low scores together and saying aggies scored between 1580-1910 is not statistically correct. the average student is likely to have scored higher than average on some sections and lower than average on other sections. students with high scores or low scores on three sections would no longer be considered average students and unlikely in the 50 percentile of the student population as mentioned above. That being said, i don't like how i worded the section. suggestions. Oldag07 ( talk) 03:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I will eventually when I get time, try to replace the sentence.
Both the men's and women's team reached NCAA postseason appearances in 2006, a first for A&M since Big 12 play began in 1996.
however, I don't pay much attention to aggie basketball, but I do believe we have made the tournament four years in a row for both teams, with is a far better accomplishment than this mere statement. a complete rewrite, or at least some sources of how to replace this sentence would be greatly appreciated. Oldag07 ( talk) 19:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
This is actually a big deal. . . . I am eventually going to put it in, but i don't have time at the moment.
Texas A&M is the first public university to make technology commercialization a basis for tenure.
http://www.genomeweb.com/biotechtransferweek/texas-am%E2%80%99s-use-tech-commercialization-basis-awarding-tenure-gains-traction http://www.technologytransfertactics.com/content/reprints/1007-tenure/
http://sago-news.tamu.edu/releases/?p=166
Suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks and Gig em. Oldag07 ( talk) 03:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
There is currently an RfC on this question at Talk:University of Maine#Flagship RFC. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 12:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to put the college station campus endowment of $413,511,711 as oppose to the TAMU systemwide endowment? [3] TrainerTomlol ( talk) 16:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, but i am not exactly sure how to state it in the endowment section of the page. we have extensive elaboration about how we are calculating the amount of money the whole system is receiving. However, how the US News and world report only states a number. Is that the PUF allocation for Texas A&M divided by the number of universities in the system. does it add private donations. I just don't know how to state it. Oldag07 ( talk) 17:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I note that this article doesn't appear to have any section dedicated to describing the organization and administration of the university. Per WP:UNIGUIDE, might we devote some space for the structure of the administration, current leadership, budget, relationship with a board of trustees, relationship with other public university systems in Texas, student and faculty government, endowment information, academic divisions of the college/university, formal affiliations with other educational institutions, membership in major consortium or other inter-university organization, etc.? Madcoverboy ( talk) 14:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I added what I think are some key facts about the university to the history section. To keep the section as concise as possible, I think we need to clean out as much extra detail as we can from this article. Some of what I removed has been reinstated, so I'm opening the discussion here to get more opinions.
Thoughts from others on these two issues? Any other points that should be left out of this overview (but kept in history article)? Karanacs ( talk) 02:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The article doesn't tell us that the statue is important in day-to-day activities, nor does it tell us that having the statue is unique. In the grand scheme of things, will a reader unfamiliar with TAMU care that there is a statue? I would think they would rather know more details about what Sully did than how he was memorialized. I'm trying to read the article through as if I were an FAC reviewer who had never seen this before (I would have opposed its state yesterday given the upgrade in FAC standards in the last few years), and as an FAC reviewer I'd have yanked that level of what seems like triviality out of an article. Karanacs ( talk) 14:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Brainstorming:
Take them or leave them. Oldag07 ( talk) 04:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I think there were (and still are) way too many pictures in the article, and that is part of what is causing the article to load slowly. It also makes the article seem sloppy - too many pictures jammed together. There are about 20 pictures currently in the article, which is an incredibly high number for an article not on an artist or art movement. I think we should only keep images that are relevant and show something interesting. What does the TAMUQ picture actually show the reader? You can't see any of the campus, and the people look like students anywhere. To me, that is not helpful at all. I think we really need to justify each image in the article, and if it doesn't actually provide unique information, or depict something that can't be shown easily in words, the image probably doesn't belong. For an article this size, I'd aim for 10-14 images. Karanacs ( talk) 14:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Before I forget, I found a pretty good source to add to our page.
http://www.kbtx.com/tamu/headlines/56731657.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldag07 ( talk • contribs) 13:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to merge the Worldwide section into the other areas of Academics. I think some of this would be an excellent introduction to the research section, and other bits would fit well in the Student Body section. If there are no objections, I'll make the change tomorrow morning (Texas time), before the article makes it on the main page. Also, should endowment be a separate higher-level section rather than be lumped under Academics? It doesn't have a lot to do with academics, per se. Karanacs ( talk) 19:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I like Karanacs' idea about merging "worldwide" into other parts of the page. Also when reading though the article, I agree with an earlier suggestion on the talk page to create a new section about the institution of Texas A&M. Very little on this page talks about how this school functions within the TAMU system. There is no explicit mention on the difference between our branch campuses TAMU Galveston and Qutar and our sister schools within the system, TAMU Commerce or Kingsville. A new section would also be a good place to put the endowment section. Keep up the good work. Oldag07 ( talk) 21:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I support the merge as well. I wish we had a picture to accompany the section though. I tried to look for relevant free use pictures, but could not find any. Do y'all know why the Research Park picture that used to be in that section got removed? If we can't find any other images, then I guess we'll have to add that one again. BlueAg09 ( Talk) 09:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Here are a few minor grammar problems I found:
That's all I have for now; I'll see if I can find more later. Also, the article will appear on the main page at 7:00 P.M. CST today, so we should plan on making any additional changes prior to that time. BlueAg09 ( Talk) 10:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
hi, not sure where to ask this, but if you add up the number of students (37357 + 5364 + 3314), you end up with 505 less students than the total number of students listed. does anyone know why?
(initial post from GregZ copied from BQZip01's talk page) All the rest aside The Texas A&M University System recognizes 1876 as the official date of establishment of Texas A&M as is clearly shown here: http://www.tamus.edu/univ/tamu.html. Why can you not allow the facts to be shown on the page?
"The Texas A&M University System—although not officially recognized as such until 1948—got its start in 1876, with the establishment of the state’s first public college, the land-grant Agricultural and Mechanical College (A&M) in College Station."
This is the exact quote from the Texas A&M University System History page. It clearly states that the first public college in Texas was established in 1876. We know that Texas' first public college was TAMC, currently Texas A&M, therefore Texas A&M was established in 1876.
The Texas State legislature set aside money in 1871 for the formation a public college. Texas AMC did not come into being as a state university until 1876, most importantly: 1876 is the year that Texas A&M claims its origin. If you continue to disagree, I would suggest that you Consult the Official Seal of the University where the year 1876 is clearly displayed in the manner that is traditionally reserved on a seal for an establishment or founding year.
Senate bill # 276 April 17 1871 house passes a bill entitled: "An act to provide for the Establishment of the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas." That Provision was money ($75,000, if you look further into it), which would later be used to establish the College. If you look at the wording of previous acts they are all stated in an "active" manner, For Example:"act to incorporate 'X'" & "Act to Authorize 'Y'," or in A&M's case "Act to Provide for 'Z'." The act authorizes the providing of $75,000 so that the College could be established, nothing more.
The wording of the bill was copied exactly from page 1073 of the official record of the 12th Legislature of the state of Texas, if you would like to verify
If that is not enough follow this link to another page in The Texas A&M University System website and see when they consider A&M to have been established... http://www.tamus.edu/univ/tamu.html
so please allow the proper year of establishment to show on the page, prospective students commonly use wikipedia to research their University options and it would be a shame for Texas A&M's page to be erroneous —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregzeppelin ( talk • contribs) 04:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
If the date of Establishment is the date which an institution chooses to recognize as its beginning, then the choice is not up to us at all but rather Texas A&M. And clearly with 1876 showing on the official Seal, and 1876 clearly claimed as the Date of Establishment on the Texas A&M University System's history page on Texas A&M University College Station. Texas A&M chooses to recognize 1876 as its beginning, and thus this is the date that should be displayed on the page. I trust this forum will do the right thing and post the appropriate year. I will not do so, so as not to become a nuisance to the page, as that is the last thing I want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregzeppelin ( talk • contribs) 01:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually primary sources are allowable as long as you "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." there is clearly no analyzing necessary to discern that The Texas A&M University System (a very reliable primary source) considers A&M to have been established in 1876. please see this page. http://www.tamus.edu/overview/about.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregzeppelin ( talk • contribs) 01:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
My vote is to stick with 1871 as the establishment date. → Wordbuilder ( talk) 03:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, if we want to argue non-independent sources, see this A&M page from the 06-07 catalog [1] which states: until the establishment of the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas by act of the Twelfth Texas Legislature on April 17, 1871. The school (if not the system) appears to accept the wording in this article. Karanacs ( talk) 03:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
t.u.'s establishment date of 1883 is the year that they began to teach classes. The Texas State Legislature established t.u. by legislative action in 1858. (
http://www.texasalmanac.com/history/highlights/universities/)
If we choose to go by legislative establishments, even though A&M was established by the legislature in 1871, it would lose the honored distinction of being the first public institution of higher learning in Texas. Because it would be necessary to consider t.u.'s establishment date as the legislative date for uniformity's sake. Also since A&M is considered by a general consensus to the be oldest public university in Texas, wouldn't that imply that the establishment dates of public Texas University's be the date classes started? Otherwise t.u. would have a general consensus as being the oldest... Gregzeppelin ( talk) 05:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
This may be small, but while we're sitting on here discussing dates, the section of the article regarding Sully is erroneous. It says "Upon his death in 1898, a statue was erected in front of what is now Academic Plaza to honor Ross and his achievements in the history of the school." To me that implies that it was immediately following his death. This contradicts the Sul Ross article that says "Within weeks of Ross's death former cadets at Texas AMC began gathering funds for a monument. In 1917, the state appropriated $10,000 for the monument, and 2 years later a 10 foot (3 m) bronze statue of Ross, sculpted by Pompeo Coppini, was unveiled at the center of the Texas AMC campus." I know FOR A FACT that there is an inscription on the statues itself IIRC, on the rear portion of the left side with three numbers for a date (one obscured) and Coppini's name. Txtimetraveler ( talk) 20:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)txtimetraveler
I haven't checked on this article for a while. The AggieSat section has been greatly expanded. AggieSat itself isn't that central to TAMU. outside of the engineering department, many haven't even heard of it. I think stub article could be created with the current text with a few modifications:
(removed because fuller version reinserted later into topic Oldag07 ( talk) 20:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC))
As for undergraduate research, the paragraph should be extended or completely removed. Engineering is certainly not the only undergraduate research opportunity at the school. Aggiesat is certainly not the only undergradate program of note. TAMU Undergraduate research. even as a pure engineering standpoint, the human submarine program is also of note. Human submarine
We probably need to mention this to Hut101. Gig em! Oldag07 ( talk) 12:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, i am looking more into this. AggieSat redirects to the TAMU page. I think the University Nanosatellite Program should have a page, and just mention that Aggiesat is part of it. TAMU isn't even the only school with a Nanosat program. if aggiesat were to be mentioned, I feel it should be 1)shorter, 2) in the student life section labeled as an engineering competition not pure "research" Oldag07 ( talk) 13:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
This was removed: Original paragraph
Besides postgraduates, undergraduate students also have many research opportunities, including AggieSat, a student organization established by the Aerospace Department to build student satellites with NASA and the Air Force Research Lab. Approximately 25 undergraduate students representing 7 majors are involved, with assistance from graduates students in both engineering and business. While graduate students manage AggieSat Lab on a daily basis, undergraduates are responsible for designing and building the actual satellites. Current projects include competing against several universities in Nanosat-5, an Air Force competition for constructing autonomous satellites, and a joint project with NASA and the University of Texas to develop two Cube Satellites for autonomous rendezvous and docking. [1] Currently the second project, AggieSat2 is scheduled for launch on-board Space Shuttle Endeavour, mission STS-127, around May 2009. [2]
I took out co-education from the first sentence of the lead since I think it's a trivial distinction. The vast majority of colleges and universities are co-educational, both in America and the world at large, so it's not as important to assert this distinction at the start of the article as it is for its funding status (private, public, etc.) or type (research university, liberal arts school, etc.). BQZip observes that A&M used to be single sex and that warrants inclusion in the lead. By that metric, we should also include "racially integrated" ;) Madcoverboy ( talk) 23:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Like Aggiesat, Hillel, is in my opinion not notable enough to be on the main TAMU page.
Texas A&M Hillel, the oldest Hillel organization in the United States, was founded in 1920 at the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas (now Texas A&M). The organization occurred three years before the national Hillel Foundation was organized at University of Illinois. [3] [4]
it seems like it was copied and pasted. - was founded in 1920 at the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas (now Texas A&M) Oldag07 ( talk) 20:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Removed Phi Beta Kappa:
In 2004, the honors organization Phi Beta Kappa opened its 265th chapter at Texas A&M. [5]
Oldag07 ( talk) 20:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I would say Hillel could stay considering it's the oldest (that's something unique). The other two should go. — BQZip01 — talk 21:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Also in 2004, Texas A&M joined a consortium of universities to build the Giant Magellan Telescope in Chile. With seven mirrors, each with a diameter of 8.4 meters (9.2 yd), the optical telescope will have the equivalent of a 24.5 meters (26.8 yd) primary mirror. With construction slated to be complete in 2016, it will be the largest optical telescope ever constructed and ten times more powerful than the Hubble Space Telescope. [6] With the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration, Texas A&M's nuclear research reactor became the first to convert uranium reactor fuel from a highly enriched form to a low-enriched safer form. Completed on October 13, 2006, the process of depleting the uranium from 70% enrichment to 20% enrichment finalized an 18-month, joint project. This accomplishment fulfilled a portion of U.S. President George W. Bush’s Global Nuclear Threat Reduction Initiative. [7]
I feel that these section are also too specialized for this particular page. maybe they should be moved to the engineering section. maybe with aggiesat. Oldag07 ( talk) 20:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
The block ATM is most associated with the university while the seal is the offical seal of the University. Both have their place under fair use. By omitting the block ATM, you are removing the single most identifying logo associated with the University. By removing the seal, you are removing the sole official seal of the university. Harvard has the same logo for both, but other schools have more than one. Minimal use for identification is appropriate an no criterion of WP:NFCC prohibits their use. — BQZip01 — talk 08:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
5 featured university articles operating under the same logic. Those were randomly picked. Oldag07 ( talk) 15:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I gave y'all a shout out at the de-guideline-ified WP:BOOSTER ;) Madcoverboy ( talk) 23:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Added a paragraph about conservatism of our beloved university. I was going to put it in our student life page until i gave up on that. that being said, I think it is an important part of the university, and i am putting it in the student life profile section of this page.
Oldag07 (
talk)
05:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The lead sentence says "Texas A&M University, often called A&M or TAMU, is a coeducational public research university located in College Station, Texas." - Where's the United States? A&M is located in the U.S., isn't it? If the US is absent from the lead sentence, then where would it come from if it is described later?
If a university from Burkina Faso should mention the country in its lead section, then a university from the United States should too. As we know we need to have a Worldwide View of a subject, so that means treating all countries equally.
As for the idea of saying "Texas A&M is an American university," (as a way of describing A&M as of the United States) that doesn't necessarily imply connections with the federal government (there are none) - After all just because a person is American or a style of cooking is American doesn't mean it is in cahoots with the federal government. Why would it be any different regarding a university? WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
WhisperToMe ( talk) 02:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that this conversation should be held in a wider venue such as WP:UNI to solicit more widespread participation given the precedent that would be set if we agreed that "United States" should be added to the lead? -- ElKevbo ( talk) 04:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion one way or another on whether the words "United States" should be added to the lead. I would request that if added they not be wikilinked, however, because that is likely an overlinking issue. Karanacs ( talk) 14:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
After visiting campus this past weekend, I feel that the massive campus construction projects should have a blurb on this page. I have already expanded the Campus of Texas A&M University page. How about:
Following the completion of a comprehensive Campus master plan, the Texas A&M campus has entered an expansion phase with some of the largest construction projects the intuition's history underway. In 2007, 700 million dollars of construction projects have been planned or already underway in the Bryan College Station area. To fund this expansion, the university is relying on state funding, donations, fees and tuition revenue bonds to cover costs. [8]
We can also elaborate, maybe not here on tuition deregulation, maybe? or maybe just in the history section. Thoughts? Oldag07 ( talk) 07:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Considering the last significant clean up effort on this page was almost two years so, I checked with the link checker, and we seem to have several dead links. If anybody would like to help me clean up, this link checker is a great place to start. Oldag07 ( talk) 04:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I tried to rewrite the SAT section.
The middle 50% of the freshmen had an average SAT scores of : in critical reading, 520 - 630, math, 560 - 670, and writing 500 - 610. As for ACT test, the middle 50% freshmen class at Texas A&M scored between a 23 and 29.
to fix a dead link. This is the new source [2].
Adding the high scores and the low scores together and saying aggies scored between 1580-1910 is not statistically correct. the average student is likely to have scored higher than average on some sections and lower than average on other sections. students with high scores or low scores on three sections would no longer be considered average students and unlikely in the 50 percentile of the student population as mentioned above. That being said, i don't like how i worded the section. suggestions. Oldag07 ( talk) 03:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I will eventually when I get time, try to replace the sentence.
Both the men's and women's team reached NCAA postseason appearances in 2006, a first for A&M since Big 12 play began in 1996.
however, I don't pay much attention to aggie basketball, but I do believe we have made the tournament four years in a row for both teams, with is a far better accomplishment than this mere statement. a complete rewrite, or at least some sources of how to replace this sentence would be greatly appreciated. Oldag07 ( talk) 19:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
This is actually a big deal. . . . I am eventually going to put it in, but i don't have time at the moment.
Texas A&M is the first public university to make technology commercialization a basis for tenure.
http://www.genomeweb.com/biotechtransferweek/texas-am%E2%80%99s-use-tech-commercialization-basis-awarding-tenure-gains-traction http://www.technologytransfertactics.com/content/reprints/1007-tenure/
http://sago-news.tamu.edu/releases/?p=166
Suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks and Gig em. Oldag07 ( talk) 03:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
There is currently an RfC on this question at Talk:University of Maine#Flagship RFC. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 12:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to put the college station campus endowment of $413,511,711 as oppose to the TAMU systemwide endowment? [3] TrainerTomlol ( talk) 16:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, but i am not exactly sure how to state it in the endowment section of the page. we have extensive elaboration about how we are calculating the amount of money the whole system is receiving. However, how the US News and world report only states a number. Is that the PUF allocation for Texas A&M divided by the number of universities in the system. does it add private donations. I just don't know how to state it. Oldag07 ( talk) 17:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I note that this article doesn't appear to have any section dedicated to describing the organization and administration of the university. Per WP:UNIGUIDE, might we devote some space for the structure of the administration, current leadership, budget, relationship with a board of trustees, relationship with other public university systems in Texas, student and faculty government, endowment information, academic divisions of the college/university, formal affiliations with other educational institutions, membership in major consortium or other inter-university organization, etc.? Madcoverboy ( talk) 14:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I added what I think are some key facts about the university to the history section. To keep the section as concise as possible, I think we need to clean out as much extra detail as we can from this article. Some of what I removed has been reinstated, so I'm opening the discussion here to get more opinions.
Thoughts from others on these two issues? Any other points that should be left out of this overview (but kept in history article)? Karanacs ( talk) 02:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The article doesn't tell us that the statue is important in day-to-day activities, nor does it tell us that having the statue is unique. In the grand scheme of things, will a reader unfamiliar with TAMU care that there is a statue? I would think they would rather know more details about what Sully did than how he was memorialized. I'm trying to read the article through as if I were an FAC reviewer who had never seen this before (I would have opposed its state yesterday given the upgrade in FAC standards in the last few years), and as an FAC reviewer I'd have yanked that level of what seems like triviality out of an article. Karanacs ( talk) 14:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Brainstorming:
Take them or leave them. Oldag07 ( talk) 04:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I think there were (and still are) way too many pictures in the article, and that is part of what is causing the article to load slowly. It also makes the article seem sloppy - too many pictures jammed together. There are about 20 pictures currently in the article, which is an incredibly high number for an article not on an artist or art movement. I think we should only keep images that are relevant and show something interesting. What does the TAMUQ picture actually show the reader? You can't see any of the campus, and the people look like students anywhere. To me, that is not helpful at all. I think we really need to justify each image in the article, and if it doesn't actually provide unique information, or depict something that can't be shown easily in words, the image probably doesn't belong. For an article this size, I'd aim for 10-14 images. Karanacs ( talk) 14:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Before I forget, I found a pretty good source to add to our page.
http://www.kbtx.com/tamu/headlines/56731657.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldag07 ( talk • contribs) 13:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to merge the Worldwide section into the other areas of Academics. I think some of this would be an excellent introduction to the research section, and other bits would fit well in the Student Body section. If there are no objections, I'll make the change tomorrow morning (Texas time), before the article makes it on the main page. Also, should endowment be a separate higher-level section rather than be lumped under Academics? It doesn't have a lot to do with academics, per se. Karanacs ( talk) 19:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I like Karanacs' idea about merging "worldwide" into other parts of the page. Also when reading though the article, I agree with an earlier suggestion on the talk page to create a new section about the institution of Texas A&M. Very little on this page talks about how this school functions within the TAMU system. There is no explicit mention on the difference between our branch campuses TAMU Galveston and Qutar and our sister schools within the system, TAMU Commerce or Kingsville. A new section would also be a good place to put the endowment section. Keep up the good work. Oldag07 ( talk) 21:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I support the merge as well. I wish we had a picture to accompany the section though. I tried to look for relevant free use pictures, but could not find any. Do y'all know why the Research Park picture that used to be in that section got removed? If we can't find any other images, then I guess we'll have to add that one again. BlueAg09 ( Talk) 09:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Here are a few minor grammar problems I found:
That's all I have for now; I'll see if I can find more later. Also, the article will appear on the main page at 7:00 P.M. CST today, so we should plan on making any additional changes prior to that time. BlueAg09 ( Talk) 10:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)