Talk:University of Texas at Austin/Archive 3

message: Hello, there was a recent edit that claimed the official colors of The University are "focal orange and pure white".  I have been doing a little research into this.  Here are some references.  I find numbers 3, 4, 10, and 16 to be the most relevant:
#The University of Texas Longhorn Band - "Traditions" page - claims "The University colors, orange and white, were officially adopted by the regents on May 10, 1900, after a student vote. As early as 1885, students had displayed orange and white ribbons on special occasions. Athletic teams later unofficially adopted burnt Orange. The official colors, as used in the university seal, are focal orange and pure white."
#"We're Texas" Historical Exhibit - claims "orange and white" chosen as the official colors in 1900.
#UT Web Page style guide - this page deals with nomenclature, logos, colors, etc.  According to this site, the official colors are "burnt orange and white"
#Another UT Web Page Style Guide - again claims "burnt orange and white" are the official colors
#The University Seal in the Life Sciences Library - this library of course, is in the main building, aka The Tower - the orange seems closer to "focal orange" than "burnt orange"
#TexasSports.com - Traditions - Burnt Orange and White - states that orange and white ribbons first appeared sported by baseball fans, that football started out with Gold and White, that after 1889 the university voted in "orange and white", that UT football coach Clyde Littlefield first used burnt orange in 1928, that this dye became too expensive during the depression, and that Darrell K. Royall brought back the burnt orange color in the early 1960's. 
#Texas Exes Celebrates 100 Years of The Seal of The Unviersity - colors are specified as "orange and white", orange in the image is fairly bright.
#UT System Rules and Regulations - specifies offical colors for each school in the system are "orange and white" and that each school "may adopt one additional color to be used in connection with athletic and other activities of the institution when approved by the Board of Regents upon recommendation of the president of the institution, the appropriate Executive Vice Chancellor, and the Chancellor."
#ou Style Guide - says to avoid use of "orange" in publications/designs because this color is used by OSU and by Texas.  Several color swatches are shown (with hexadecimal codes) to avoid, none of them are named.
#Another "University Image publication" - signed by then UT Austin President Larry Faulkner - states "Burnt orange and white are the official colors of the university. The distinctive burnt orange color employed by The University of Texas at Austin plays a major role in establishing our identity. Legend has it that the burnt orange color was chosen by football coach Darrell Royal, who thought that it would help his players conceal the football when they ran the triple option. This specific shade of orange, known as "Texas Orange" or "Burnt Orange" was made official on June 17,1967, when Chancellor Harry Ransom made a recommendation to the Board of Regents"
#Texas Monthly Magazine (by subscription) or Google Cache - says "their choice did not become official until May 1900, after the board of regents tallied the votes of 1,111 students, faculty members, and alumni. Orange and white received 562 votes, orange and maroon followed with 310, royal blue alone received 203, and various other colors trailed with less than 15 votes each. Over the next few decades, many different shades of orange were used until the board of regents settled upon burnt orange—what they deemed "Texas Orange"—on June 17, 1967."
#Some Resources in the historical collection of the UT library - if anyone on or near campus wants to go check them out.
#Board of Regents Minutes - Sept 1966 -  show reciept of a petition NOT to have Burnt Orange as offical color. 
#Board of Regents Minutes from 17 June 1967 - shows they POSTPONED action on changing the offical colors (p70 of these minutes as noted at bottom center of page - p1791 of the compillation as noted on the top right of the page) - {aside: one thing they did do it to order the tower observation deck to be opened on page 97/1820)
#Board of Regents - 1980 - they adopt colors for athletics of UTSA of "orange, navy blue, and white" - the original motion specified "burnt orange", but the "burnt" was struck by ammendment.  The exact shades are specified by reference to a Sherwin Williams system.  They also note that "(Colors for athletics for other institutions of The University of Texas System were officially adopted at the Regents' meeting on July 31, 1970.) 
#Board of Regents, July 31, 1970 - approved seals, athletics colors, mascots, etc.  The athletics colors for UT Austin are specified as "orange and white".  The color in the seal for UT Austin is specified as "The official shade of orange is the one used on the north end of the outside of Texas Memorial Stadium, which color is shown on the color chart of Pittsburg Lavax Machinery Enamel, No. 23 - 81 Focal Orange. The official color is on file in the Permanent Minutes of the Board of Regents."
#Austin American Statemen Article - stored at UT System web page - cites "burnt orange" Pantone Matching System 159 as the official color.
*My conclusions:  From reference number 16, it seems that the official athletics colors of UT Austin, shocking as this may seem, are simply "orange and white".  However, general usage, even that promoted by agents of The University acting in their official capacity, including the UT president himself (references 3, 4, and 10) specifies "burnt orange".  This applies not only to athletics related material, but all materials published on behalf of the university.  "Focal orange" seems to apply only to the seal.
*My recommendation: is to include in this article the following text: "The school's colors are officially Orange and White, with Burnt Orange also known as Texas Orange, being the specific shade of orange used." Johntex\talk 23:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. If that's a "little research", I'd hate to see what happens when you do a lot. But, agree on your wording. Bellhalla 00:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No kidding!  Ditto here, except without the British spelling <poke> · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 01:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like good wording to me. Good job on the research! EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with all above. Thanks Johntex for your research and clearing this up! jareha 18:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Color Controversy

message: jareha has created a WikiProject for The University of Texas at Austin. Let's get busy! Thanks, jareha, for taking this step for us! Johntex\talk 22:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Burnt Orange Wikipedian Brigade - (UT Wiki-Poject)

message: This article definitely needs some more pictures. It's seriously lacking.--Zereshk 11:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I look forward to your pictures, Zereshk. --Grouse 11:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Pictures of the campus in general, so that the reader can form an image of what the UT campus looks like.--Zereshk 07:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently uploaded two pictures to Commons:  and commons:Image:UT tower with fountain, but they're also old (from 1989, when you couldn't even go up the tower), small, and non-digital. I'll let other people decide if they're better than nothing! Angr (talk • contribs) 08:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not good

message: Portal:University of Texas at Austin
and
Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Texas at Austin
We are creating these new resources to help improve Wikipedias coverage of all things UT.  We can use your help!! Johntex\talk 03:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hook it over here

message: The Turing Scholars entry should read "A computer sciences honors program" as it is not the only honors program within the CS Department. Also, the major and department are "computer sciences," not "computer science," which is a frequent mistake. source ChrisKennedy 03:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold, ChrisKennedy.--Grouse 09:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Turing Scholars

message: I received the following e-mail from Mary Knight, Associate Vice President and Budget Director today (extra line spacing deleted): --Grouse 13:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The very point we have been discussing is that the University does not control the endowment.  The system does. Rkevins82 14:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endowment message 

message: I found this when doing some research on university endowments around the country, I think it should be included either here or on the UT System page, as it lists the UT system's total endowment as over $11b. I think what could be incorporated into this
article is perhaps a statement indicating that "the University controls one of the largest financial endowments of any learning institution in America." I am unsure of where I could insert this though. 
Here is the link: http://www.nacubo.org/documents/about/FY05NESInstitutionsbyTotalAssets.pdf
J. Charles Taylor 11:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The very point we have been discussing is that the University does not control the endowment.  The system does. Rkevins82 14:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Endowment documentation

message: That is a picture of the main building of Saint Edwards University in Austin, a completely different institute. I, as a student of Saint Edwards, am slightly offended. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.87 (talk • contribs) 
:To which image are you referring? — Scm83x hook 'em 04:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need for you to be offended, 66.82.9.87.  Take a closer look at the photo.  This was a building that stood in place of the current UT Tower and was torn down in 1934.  Yes, there are architectural similarities to the main bldg at St Ed's, but they are entirely different structures.  SteveHopson 12:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  that picture of the main building 

message: I Removed "...including Ohio State University..." because it is not supported by either of the existing references.  If you add it back, please add an additional reference that specifically mentions Ohio State considering UT to be a rival or vice versa.  The two teams have played exactly once is 100+ years of football each.  Was it a great game?  Absolutely.  Important to the 2005-2006 football season? Absolutely.  I don't think it constitutes a rivalry. Johntex\talk 18:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rivalry section

message: I have removed the phrase "is sometimes referred to as" when discussing the University's role as a Public Ivy because I think it is unclear. Because Richard Moll explicitly included the University of Texas as one of the original eight public Ivies when coining the term, any discussion of the "public Ivies" would naturally include Texas, and thus it can be said with accuracy that Texas is considered to be a Public Ivy. J. Charles Taylor 21:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is hard for me to consider the Public Ivy mention to be as notable as anything else before the TOC. It is never something I have heard discussed outside Wikipedia. I would probably move it to Rankings. But that is just my opinion, and not a strong one at that.--Grouse 21:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the new wording as it is more precise.  I have a slight preference for this fact remaining in the intro, but I am not overly opposed to moving it somewhere else. Johntex\talk 00:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Public Ivy

message: Nowhere in any official documentation will you find UT Austin classfied as a 'flagship' university. It is accurately categorized as a public school or a state university. 'Flagship' is an informal, subjective term used to describe the university's reputation and is therefore not even NPOV.  I am changing the type to 'Public', which objectively describes the university's type.  08:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your definition of "flagship." M-W defines it in this context as "the finest, largest, or most important one of a series, network, or chain." When referring to the other universities of the University of Texas System, it is indisputable that UT Austin is the first and largest general academic institution in the UT System, and very few people would argue that it is not the most important or finest. It is commonly referred to as a flagship within the UT System administration and Board of Regents. See, e.g. . I should additionally note that a Google search on Wikipedia for flagship university reveals many other uses in exactly this vein. --Grouse 09:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flagship 

message: An editor wishes to add the following link to this and other articles:
:"VOICES From The Tower"
I have asked them if we can have a centralized discussion about this link, rather than have the discussion across mutliple pages, and they have agreed to have the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Texas#Centralized_discussion_on_UT_Tower_shooting_link.  Please visit that discussion if you wish to participate.  Thanks, Johntex\talk 17:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Centralized discussion on UT Tower shooting link

message: Dear t-sip wikipedians,
In fear of starting some kind of rivalry edit-war, I try not to mess with your page at all. However, when Texas A&M was founded it was the Agricultural & Mechanical College of Texas. Therefore, I have made slight edits so that your history paragraph is factually correct in reference to the name.
I left that little "first class university," THE Univ. of Texas. in place, though I feel it is worded in a fashion to lend a bit of POV. It's understandable since you are writing about your alma mater and I've come to expect t.u. to be a bit uppity, but must congratulate you on a well written article on the whole. Thanks and Gig'Em. --Long, Tall Texan 02:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Texas A&M as mentioned in History Section