Redirected page from Glossary of Texas Aggie terms to List of Texas Aggie terms
Self Nomination: This is the WikiProject Texas A&M's first Featured list candidate. We feel it meets all of the qualifications for a featured list
Oldag07 (
talk)
02:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Note I did inform members of WikiProject Texas A&M to help edit concerns that might come up in this review, including BQZip01, BlueAg09, and Karanacs
Oldag07 (
talk)
14:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment The lead is too short and it doesn't pass criteria 1a1 (connects a group of existing articles) which is excuseable by 1a3, but I'm not entirely sure this list is a "significant topic of study" --
Scorpion042202:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I suppose it is all a matter of perspective, but I would consider a major University in the U.S. a "significant topic.", but I suppose that's all a matter of perspective. Furthermore, there are a few featured articles to which it is linked, so I suppose that also adds to it. Like I said, I suppose it is all a matter of perspective. I suppose the lead could certainly be expanded.
— BQZip01 —talk04:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
"Elephant walk" under the term "Dead Elephant" shouldn't be wikilinked to the same page. And "Elephant walk" is the very next word to be defined. Surely a reader isn't going to have problems finding it?
"Aggie jokes" is listed under J, when it clearly starts with an "A". And the term "Polish jokes" needs explaining for those who don't understand that.
half of this glossary would start with the word Aggie if we would go by this definition. much like what the term "university of . . . . ". would be in a list of universities.
List of American state universities. that is why I ignored the word "aggie" when alphabetizing it
Oldag07 (
talk)
13:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
OK, that's fine then.
"where the newly cut logs back to campus" under the term "load" doesn't make sense. Is it missing some words?
"Bonfire" (and "student bonfire") is not a term reserved/thought up at the university. Look at England's
Bonfire Night, which has been going since the 17th Century, and is also observed in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The term also appears in dictionaries. I would have thought that Aggie "terminology" would neither be as widespread as those countries, nor appear in dictionaries. And I'd be willing to bet that the 17th Century predates the usage at the university.
It is good that we have outsiders looking at this page. I changed the name to Aggie bonfire. It isn't the fact that the name "bonfire" itself is uncommon, it is the meaning that A&M gives to the term. for example, the word "Texas" generally refers to the state, but when you are talking about college football, you are referring to the
University of Texas. I guess i could elaborate about the size of the actual fire, and the subsequent collapse of it that made national news.
Oldag07 (
talk)
13:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I support this idea. I am honestly not sure why, but i am not sure if it is a good idea to change the page while it is under review.
I don't see why not.
The Office (U.S. season 3) has gone through two page moves during its FL review. As long as this project page is updated to point to the new location it shouldn't be a problem.
The lead needs working on. Even though the terms "Aggie" and "A&M" are described in the body, they still need describing a little here. "Some phrases are also used by non-Aggies, such as persons associated with a rival school" could do with being referenced or removed.
"The term is similarly used at
other land grant schools in the United States and Canada." This needs referencing, and I would place the word "other" outside of the wikilink.
"Corps", "cut", "CT", "Main Campus", "West Campus", "Whoop" and "Yell" are all words in common English language usage, and not "words and phrases which are unique to, or hold a special meaning connected with, Texas A&M University", and so should be removed from the list. "Maroon" and "White" are recognised colour, and so also not words unique to the university.
Not trying to butt in here, but the sources cited below come from all over the US and the world. I would assume that would make these terms clearly notable. Thoughts?
— BQZip01 —talk17:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
They're still only notable to people from the university. The references use the words because the link to articles from or about the university, not about the greater world, and not the about the words specifically. I could also make arguments about
WP:CRUFT,
WP:IINFO and
WP:MADEUP even with the references, but that was covered at the AFD (which I did not take part in it), and the reason why with the changes made based upon my comments, I went from oppose to neutral. --
Matthew|talk|Contribs22:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, that's kinda my point. Many of these terms are notable outside the university, even if they only reference entities of the university. These terms certainly aren't
"made up" and many have existed for 100 years or more. But, hey: if we disagree, we disagree. Have a nice day.
— BQZip01 —talk23:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Conditional Support - this article has become a very good resource. It is well-referenced and fits the FL criteria. (Note: I originally created the page, but I have not edited it recently.) Concerns:
My main qualm with the article is that the final sentence in the lead section is a fragment and needs to be fixed: "And a couple of terms on this are used by the university's rivals against Aggies and are on this list for referencing reasons."
(optional) I think the lead could be a little more to the point somehow. Maybe a statement (assuming a reference is available) that A&M is unique/unusual in having such a large set of slang-words. I don't have specific wording to suggest at the moment.
Johntex\talk19:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Thanks, the lead is better, but I think it can still be improved. This sentence contains a self-reference "While most of the terms on this page..." and I do think it would be better if the very first paragraph can mention that the school is known for its traditions and special vocabulary - something along those lines.
Johntex\talk15:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I'm a bit busy but my first thoughts on the article.
The opening sentence is not grammatically correct! Perhaps even "The glossary" or "This glossary"... A definite article is needed.
This article has been though the chopping block several times. I am not surprised that there are more grammatical mistakes. I fixed this one
Oldag07 (
talk)
22:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Lead has no citation (while not required generally, the lead sentences are not revisited so claims should be cited).
"influential Texas A&M President" - according to whom? Sounds like POV to me.
He was incredibly influential considering the fact that he saved the school from being turned into an insane asylum. However, that fact isn't necessary removed "influential"
Oldag07 (
talk)
23:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I found a replacement URL for a source that you had deleted. Anyway, it was a link to a PDF for a published (paper) report, so the reference would still have been valid (if it had been complete) without the URL. Don't throw out valid source citations just because the URL dies. See
WP:DEADREF for official advice on this. --
Orlady (
talk)
05:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose for now. There's much to like about this list, but I can't support it yet. Some issues:
Done:*In the intro, does "university's rivals against Texas A&M" refer to the university's athletic rivals or some other kind of rival? --
Orlady (
talk)
05:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Thanks for sort of explaining. I rephrased the sentence. For some reason, as written, for me it conjured up the possibility of military enemies. --
Orlady (
talk)
01:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Done:*The images on the left side make a mess by forcing some subheadings over toward the right. Boring as it may be, I think all images in this article should go on the right. --
Orlady (
talk)
05:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Done:*At my default thumbnail width of 250px, some of these images seem unnecessarily large, particularly "Other education" (I'm not convinced that image adds value to the article) and "Senior boots" (good image, but it's big relative to what it's showing). I hesitate to suggest violating
WP:MOS, and different image widths might look sloppy, but I wonder if maybe the image of the boots deserves a smaller image width than the others... (This is something to think about and play with. I think that the boot image is possibly the only image that does not risk overlapping a heading if it's on the left, so maybe it would look OK to force a width of 150px or so, and keep it on the left.) --
Orlady (
talk)
05:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I don't mean to sound too harsh, but violating MOS to suit your personal preferences is a bit extreme. I have adjusted some pictures with the "upright" tag to fix some of this (this feature was instituted for just such a use). Does this satisfy your concerns?
— BQZip01 —talk06:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Done:*The entry for "Maroon" seems incomplete. It says "Maroon has been used in context in many places." (Which contexts? Where? How? Tell me more!). It continues: "One of the University's traditions,
Maroon Out, is an official tradition occurring every year at football games." (Tell me more about Maroon Out; "official tradition" tells me nothing...) --
Orlady (
talk)
05:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)reply
IMHO, yes (to the first question). This article was broken off of the main
Aggie Bonfire article (another featured article). I would hesitate to incorporate such specific information here. That's just my opinion. I could throw in all the terms that cadets use for food, drinks, utensils, etc. at chow, but that would unnecessarily add 60-100 items with minimal description. Mentioning that there are different terms and redirecting to the main page is the best balance I think.
— BQZip01 —talk06:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, a featured list is supposed to be comprehensive, meaning that it "covers the defined scope by including every member of a set, or, in the case of dynamic lists, by not omitting any major component of the subject." The "see also" reference to omitted terms raised a red flag that this list was not comprehensive. I selected the key term "Pots" from that other article and added it to this article. What other significant unique terms are omitted from this list? --
Orlady (
talk)
01:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)reply
"The student section in athletics events[2][3][4]" - full stop missing. There are many others. If you can't see them then perhaps an independent copyedit is needed.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
07:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Has this discussion been linked on an Aggie-bashing forum associated with a rival school? That might tend to explain the sudden surge of vandalism to the article...
Redirected page from Glossary of Texas Aggie terms to List of Texas Aggie terms
Self Nomination: This is the WikiProject Texas A&M's first Featured list candidate. We feel it meets all of the qualifications for a featured list
Oldag07 (
talk)
02:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Note I did inform members of WikiProject Texas A&M to help edit concerns that might come up in this review, including BQZip01, BlueAg09, and Karanacs
Oldag07 (
talk)
14:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment The lead is too short and it doesn't pass criteria 1a1 (connects a group of existing articles) which is excuseable by 1a3, but I'm not entirely sure this list is a "significant topic of study" --
Scorpion042202:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I suppose it is all a matter of perspective, but I would consider a major University in the U.S. a "significant topic.", but I suppose that's all a matter of perspective. Furthermore, there are a few featured articles to which it is linked, so I suppose that also adds to it. Like I said, I suppose it is all a matter of perspective. I suppose the lead could certainly be expanded.
— BQZip01 —talk04:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
"Elephant walk" under the term "Dead Elephant" shouldn't be wikilinked to the same page. And "Elephant walk" is the very next word to be defined. Surely a reader isn't going to have problems finding it?
"Aggie jokes" is listed under J, when it clearly starts with an "A". And the term "Polish jokes" needs explaining for those who don't understand that.
half of this glossary would start with the word Aggie if we would go by this definition. much like what the term "university of . . . . ". would be in a list of universities.
List of American state universities. that is why I ignored the word "aggie" when alphabetizing it
Oldag07 (
talk)
13:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
OK, that's fine then.
"where the newly cut logs back to campus" under the term "load" doesn't make sense. Is it missing some words?
"Bonfire" (and "student bonfire") is not a term reserved/thought up at the university. Look at England's
Bonfire Night, which has been going since the 17th Century, and is also observed in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The term also appears in dictionaries. I would have thought that Aggie "terminology" would neither be as widespread as those countries, nor appear in dictionaries. And I'd be willing to bet that the 17th Century predates the usage at the university.
It is good that we have outsiders looking at this page. I changed the name to Aggie bonfire. It isn't the fact that the name "bonfire" itself is uncommon, it is the meaning that A&M gives to the term. for example, the word "Texas" generally refers to the state, but when you are talking about college football, you are referring to the
University of Texas. I guess i could elaborate about the size of the actual fire, and the subsequent collapse of it that made national news.
Oldag07 (
talk)
13:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I support this idea. I am honestly not sure why, but i am not sure if it is a good idea to change the page while it is under review.
I don't see why not.
The Office (U.S. season 3) has gone through two page moves during its FL review. As long as this project page is updated to point to the new location it shouldn't be a problem.
The lead needs working on. Even though the terms "Aggie" and "A&M" are described in the body, they still need describing a little here. "Some phrases are also used by non-Aggies, such as persons associated with a rival school" could do with being referenced or removed.
"The term is similarly used at
other land grant schools in the United States and Canada." This needs referencing, and I would place the word "other" outside of the wikilink.
"Corps", "cut", "CT", "Main Campus", "West Campus", "Whoop" and "Yell" are all words in common English language usage, and not "words and phrases which are unique to, or hold a special meaning connected with, Texas A&M University", and so should be removed from the list. "Maroon" and "White" are recognised colour, and so also not words unique to the university.
Not trying to butt in here, but the sources cited below come from all over the US and the world. I would assume that would make these terms clearly notable. Thoughts?
— BQZip01 —talk17:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
They're still only notable to people from the university. The references use the words because the link to articles from or about the university, not about the greater world, and not the about the words specifically. I could also make arguments about
WP:CRUFT,
WP:IINFO and
WP:MADEUP even with the references, but that was covered at the AFD (which I did not take part in it), and the reason why with the changes made based upon my comments, I went from oppose to neutral. --
Matthew|talk|Contribs22:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, that's kinda my point. Many of these terms are notable outside the university, even if they only reference entities of the university. These terms certainly aren't
"made up" and many have existed for 100 years or more. But, hey: if we disagree, we disagree. Have a nice day.
— BQZip01 —talk23:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Conditional Support - this article has become a very good resource. It is well-referenced and fits the FL criteria. (Note: I originally created the page, but I have not edited it recently.) Concerns:
My main qualm with the article is that the final sentence in the lead section is a fragment and needs to be fixed: "And a couple of terms on this are used by the university's rivals against Aggies and are on this list for referencing reasons."
(optional) I think the lead could be a little more to the point somehow. Maybe a statement (assuming a reference is available) that A&M is unique/unusual in having such a large set of slang-words. I don't have specific wording to suggest at the moment.
Johntex\talk19:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Thanks, the lead is better, but I think it can still be improved. This sentence contains a self-reference "While most of the terms on this page..." and I do think it would be better if the very first paragraph can mention that the school is known for its traditions and special vocabulary - something along those lines.
Johntex\talk15:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I'm a bit busy but my first thoughts on the article.
The opening sentence is not grammatically correct! Perhaps even "The glossary" or "This glossary"... A definite article is needed.
This article has been though the chopping block several times. I am not surprised that there are more grammatical mistakes. I fixed this one
Oldag07 (
talk)
22:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Lead has no citation (while not required generally, the lead sentences are not revisited so claims should be cited).
"influential Texas A&M President" - according to whom? Sounds like POV to me.
He was incredibly influential considering the fact that he saved the school from being turned into an insane asylum. However, that fact isn't necessary removed "influential"
Oldag07 (
talk)
23:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I found a replacement URL for a source that you had deleted. Anyway, it was a link to a PDF for a published (paper) report, so the reference would still have been valid (if it had been complete) without the URL. Don't throw out valid source citations just because the URL dies. See
WP:DEADREF for official advice on this. --
Orlady (
talk)
05:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose for now. There's much to like about this list, but I can't support it yet. Some issues:
Done:*In the intro, does "university's rivals against Texas A&M" refer to the university's athletic rivals or some other kind of rival? --
Orlady (
talk)
05:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Thanks for sort of explaining. I rephrased the sentence. For some reason, as written, for me it conjured up the possibility of military enemies. --
Orlady (
talk)
01:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Done:*The images on the left side make a mess by forcing some subheadings over toward the right. Boring as it may be, I think all images in this article should go on the right. --
Orlady (
talk)
05:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Done:*At my default thumbnail width of 250px, some of these images seem unnecessarily large, particularly "Other education" (I'm not convinced that image adds value to the article) and "Senior boots" (good image, but it's big relative to what it's showing). I hesitate to suggest violating
WP:MOS, and different image widths might look sloppy, but I wonder if maybe the image of the boots deserves a smaller image width than the others... (This is something to think about and play with. I think that the boot image is possibly the only image that does not risk overlapping a heading if it's on the left, so maybe it would look OK to force a width of 150px or so, and keep it on the left.) --
Orlady (
talk)
05:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I don't mean to sound too harsh, but violating MOS to suit your personal preferences is a bit extreme. I have adjusted some pictures with the "upright" tag to fix some of this (this feature was instituted for just such a use). Does this satisfy your concerns?
— BQZip01 —talk06:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Done:*The entry for "Maroon" seems incomplete. It says "Maroon has been used in context in many places." (Which contexts? Where? How? Tell me more!). It continues: "One of the University's traditions,
Maroon Out, is an official tradition occurring every year at football games." (Tell me more about Maroon Out; "official tradition" tells me nothing...) --
Orlady (
talk)
05:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)reply
IMHO, yes (to the first question). This article was broken off of the main
Aggie Bonfire article (another featured article). I would hesitate to incorporate such specific information here. That's just my opinion. I could throw in all the terms that cadets use for food, drinks, utensils, etc. at chow, but that would unnecessarily add 60-100 items with minimal description. Mentioning that there are different terms and redirecting to the main page is the best balance I think.
— BQZip01 —talk06:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, a featured list is supposed to be comprehensive, meaning that it "covers the defined scope by including every member of a set, or, in the case of dynamic lists, by not omitting any major component of the subject." The "see also" reference to omitted terms raised a red flag that this list was not comprehensive. I selected the key term "Pots" from that other article and added it to this article. What other significant unique terms are omitted from this list? --
Orlady (
talk)
01:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)reply
"The student section in athletics events[2][3][4]" - full stop missing. There are many others. If you can't see them then perhaps an independent copyedit is needed.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
07:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Has this discussion been linked on an Aggie-bashing forum associated with a rival school? That might tend to explain the sudden surge of vandalism to the article...