Talk:Texas Tech University/Archive 2

message: Is it just me or is anyone else troubled that the "Athletics" section is bigger than the "History" section and athletics has it's own article as well? Eighty-four years (counting back to the legislation creating the school) and we can only come up with three paragraphs, one of which has only two sentences. --Wordbuilder 16:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, here is a section in which I suggest just that sort of thing - and you came out in support of more unsourced trivia for the article.  I'm glad to see you've come around to my way of thinking, though.  Rklawton 17:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is it that I said we shouldn't expand the "History" section? I've not "come around" to anything. I still think other sections are important and I'm not advocating shrinking any of them to make them smaller than the history section. I just think that there are huge gaps to fill. As far as "unsourced trivia" goes, I do not think that school traditions are trivia, nor do I believe that using the school's website to source facts is bad. Ohio Wesleyan University is a Featured Article which appeared on Wikipedia's main page. Look at how many sources there point back to OWU's website. Texas A&M University recently achieved FA status. One person raised the same objection that you have, but no one else commenting seemed concerned. --Wordbuilder 19:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Half of the sports section on the main page is really about the mascot.  I agree that we need to reorder some of the things on the page, the question is 'how?'  We've got the academic articles broken up by college, and I think that's the way to go, but what should be the primary focus of the front page?  We've told the story of foundation and a bit of the growth, but there aren't many dramatic stories to tell beyond that.  Tech has just grown pretty gradually from a tiny college to, hopefully soon, a state flagship.  There haven't been many large leaps in the interim though, just steady progress.  Some universities have absolute overkill in their articles.  Anyone who mentions the pokemon defense needs to read the entire page on Texas A&M's traditions.  They have their own vocabulary.  As for the importance of sports on the front...Tech is a big sports school after all. A rewrite might not be a bad idea, I'll help when I can, but I don't have a lot of time on my hands right now.  Wordbuilder, I think for a start maybe we should find another university wiki-page that we think is the "perfect" template, and then try to emulate it.  *lawton, is your purpose just to be a fly in the ointment?  You should go back and read your posts consecutively.  It's pretty ridiculous. --Elred 23:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion

message: I removed the following from the article:
As a personal note from a 1969 graduate, another name proposed tongue in cheek was Tall Trees University, thus preserving the "Double T" emblem. Opposition to Texas State University was also based on the fact that the initials TSU were already associated with existing Texas Southern University. In addition Texas had several smaller "State" schools with geographic prefixes, such as East Texas State, West Texas State, North Texas State and Southwest Texas State. Many people felt that Texas State would not be unique enough from these smaller schools. (Added by 72.181.63.140) —Wordbuilder 18:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on name change controversy

message: Just curious why you removed the comments.  I graduated May 31, 1969, the day the name change was announced.  Not all students at Tech were in favor of Texas State U.  The two objections were ones I remember hearing.  I think Tall Trees U. was in the Toreador.  I do think the article gives the impression that all the Tech students at the time were opposed to Texas Tech U. which was not the case.  The biggest group supporting Texas Tech U. by far were Tech Exes.
::Wordbuilder was the one that removed the entry, but I completely agree with his logic.  That entry wasn't encyclopedic, and quite admittedly so.  I appreciate the contribution, but things like "on a personal note" or "in my opinion" or any type of exposition about the author's own background (eg your graduation year) don't belong in wiki articles.  A tongue-in-cheek thing like "Tall Trees U" doesn't have any real relevance.  Ideally, the article should read as if it were written by a robot.  Being a fellow Tech alum, I'm glad to have you around and I'm sure you can help us continue to improve the page, but try to source all your additions and remove any personal perspective from them.  Cheers. --Elred 02:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Elred summed it up. You did bring up an interesting fact in why the name "Texas State University" was undesirable. With a third-party source, a sentence or two on this would fit in just fine. Here, you note that the article may give a false impression on how many students opposed the name "Texas Tech University" and how Tech Exes supported it. Reviewing these two things, again based on third-part sources, may lead to rewriting for better accuracy. →Wordbuilder 04:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Comments on name change controversy 

message: [non-used template removed]
What do y'all think of this? It would go onto each of the pages listed in it (with the exception of TTU System pages). It would replace the two existing templates. Or, we could remove the "Other Texas Tech University System schools" section from it and keep using Template:Texas Tech University System. We should add in things like The Matador Song; Fight, Raiders, Fight; Saddle Tramps; The Masked Rider; High Riders; etc.—at least until we have enough other things to make the box full. →Wordbuilder 04:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's funny man, I was messing with almost the exact same thing a couple days ago.  Lets tweak it here then put it up.  I was looking at UT's page...that's why I made those 'guns up' hands.  --Elred 21:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. Sounds like we're on the same page, then. Feel free to edit it and when it looks right, we can start using it (unless someone has a reasonable objection). →Wordbuilder 21:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and put one up.  I used a lot of your info but it's still unfinished.  I liked the one UT has so I copied their template for the bones.--Elred 22:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template for all associated pages

message: I can't find anything that plainly says that TTU is the flagship of the TTU System. This hints at it but that isn't sufficient to leave the claim in the article. Does anyone have anything better? It doesn't have to be a web reference as Wikipedia allows references from printed material as well. →Wordbuilder 20:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly I don't think I've heard of it being referred to as the flagship.  Until the Angelo State merger there really wasn't any reason to specify that there even was a flagship since the med school is a different animal. I'll see if I can find something about that.--Elred 21:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't know how important it is. Without a citation, we can just removed the TTUS flagship claim from the article. →Wordbuilder 21:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the newest wording ("leading institution") fixes the problem. →Wordbuilder 00:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right on.  I noticed the bit about a girl being Raider Red sometimes.  I hadn't heard that.  I stand corrected.--Elred 20:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TTUS Flagship

message: Can we discuss the amount of achievement that is noteworthy of mention on the front page in the article?  I'm not talking about the Notable People page.  In my opinion, Pat Green & Cory Morrow are very localized Texas musicians and I think that hardly merits mention amongst fortune 500 CEO's, prominent politicians, and astronauts.  Primarily, people who went on to become musicians most likely did not use the education they received from the university to achieve that status (as opposed to businessmen, scientists, politicians, etc.)  Frankly, I think it's a bit embarrassing to dig up relatively obscure regionally popular musicians to place on the front page.  We're not talking about John Lennon here.  If they are worthy what is the criteria? Should we write about Johnny Hardwick being the voice of "Dale Gribble" on "King of the Hill" next to Ed Whitacre and Rick Husband?--Elred 18:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, I like danged ol' Dale Gribble, man... But, I don't think that one should be on the main page. I disagree with Pat Green being "very localized". In fact, he's not localized at all anymore. I hear his songs several times a day on Sirius Satellite Radio and his videos are on CMT and, likely, on GAC as well. Sirius listeners outside of Texas call in to request his music. Additionally, he recently played Madison Square Gardens. The Sirius DJ spent around a full minute of air time describing how, after the schow, Green wrote a thank you on his guitar and handed it to a member of the audience. The inclusion of artists like Pat Green, the Gatlin Brothers, and John Denver is to illustrate another area where Tech has had influence, particularly modern music. However, I wouldn't be against removing Morrow. I do, however, think someone like George Eads should be added to give a sampling of the school's influence upon the visual arts. →Wordbuilder 19:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're behind it I'm not going to make big deal about it, but I'm not convinced.  It seems like we're trying to be like UT, mentioning people like Owen Wilson and Wes Anderson so we mention that the antagonist from Police Academy is from Tech. ...and I like Dale Gribble too, I'm not disparaging Johnny Hardwick or the musicians, but I think mention on the front page is a very high and distinct honor that should be reserved for people who are almost household names (John Denver is.)  While I'm not a country music fan personally, I do have some idea what's going on in that scene, and I've never even heard of Green or Morrow.  That being the case, when I read the article (even through my very friendly-biased eyes) I see those names and think "big deal."--Elred 01:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. Again, I would take out Morrow. Green I would leave just for the fact that he is current. I would say most country music fans know who he is. Ten or twenty years from now, that might not be case, unlike Denver. I only mentioned Eads's inclusion since CSI: is such a popular show and many people in the developed world would instantly identify him. The Gatlin Brothers should probably go, though. This isn't the '80s after all. →Wordbuilder 03:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I reworked it into one sentence toward the end of the paragraph. It mentions only Green, Denver, and Eads. I think three is sufficient and doesn't detract from the others in the paragraph or look like we're bragging. →Wordbuilder 17:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I go to Tech and Texas country is a big deal here, and I hear a great deal about these artists and I'm not even a fan of them. Whether their education had something to do with their success or not, I think they should be mentioned. I mean, that's all it says, "List of Texas Tech University people." Not, "List of Texas Tech University people who used their education for their success." I still think they are notable that they actually attended the university.  Almosthonest06 (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a dead horse, but we aren't discussing worthiness to be mentioned on the notable people page.  We're talking about the little article that's on the main Texas Tech page.  Popularity to Lubbock locals and tech students does not constitute popularity of the level that warrants inclusion in that little paragraph.  Something being "a big deal here" is not the same as something being a "big deal."  I guess for musicians, if they  win a Grammy or have a platinum album, they enter the realm of discussion for inclusion on the front page.--Elred (talk) 03:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Nah. I wasn't reopening the debate.  It's fine as it is right now.  I was just addressing the comments made by Almosthonest06 regarding the difference between being notable locally and nationally.  I just don't want to see Bash Riprocks' nightly lineup start showing up on the front page.  For artists, specifically actors and musicians, I'm probably going to compare the relevance of anyone to UT's Owen Wilson and Wes Anderson.  Those guys, being extremely 'buzz worthy' and Oscar winning artists, trivialize our attempts to mirror their article.  That being the case, I think abstaining from that spitting contest is the better part of valor.  This has all been settled previously though, I was just addressing the newcomer's post.--Elred (talk) 04:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, chill out bud. No need to act all high-and-mighty and call me a newcomer. I apologize for not realizing that you guys were talking about the little section in the Texas Tech article, not the Notable people article. It slipped my mind, sorry. Almosthonest06 (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "newcomer" was not meant to be derogatory.  I simply used it to refer to someone who had newly come into the picture when responding to Wordbuilder (whom I've been co-editing this article with for the last two years). In other words, WB and I already settled the issue to my satisfaction, and my use of "newcomer" was simply to specify that I had NOT been talking to him in the previous post or attempting to reopen the debate. No need to be defensive.  I've noticed that you've made some good additions recently.  Welcome aboard.--Elred (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I had not heard that and couldn't find anything to verify it. I've not read any books specifically about Whitman, though. Most accounts I've heard just touch upon the main points of his life so would skip something that brief. If a reliable source can be found (on the Internet or elsewhere), Whitman should be added to List of Texas Tech University people, since it includes former students. →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable People

message: Am I missing something? The following was given as a reference for information regarding the carillon and for claims in the "Double-T logo" section: http://www.swco.ttu.edu/University_Archive/pdf/1989.pdf. However, I don't find either things discussed. Admittedly, I didn't pick it apart line-by-line and it isn't searchable; but I don't think it's there. I already added a different ref for the carillon. The same may need to be done for the Double-T. →Wordbuilder (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation for recent additions

message: Is the probation notable enough to remain in the article? Applying the "ten-year test" from Wikipedia:Recentism (which is an essay, rather than a policy or guideline), I say no. The fact that someone failed to mail the paperwork on time is sad but hardly notable now or in the longterm. If we want to start noting little infractions everywhere, we could plump up athelics' articles for quite a few schools. But, I'm sure that would rightly be met with a lot of resistance. →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I don't think it is notable anymore. I read that the probation will soon be lifted when Tech submits the info again. But I do agree, it is a petty thing to note, seeing how Tech is still fully accredited; the only problem came in the paperwork, not the quality of education itself. Almosthonest06 (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to take it out. If someone objects, we'll hash it out here and, if consensus is such, we can put it back in when the time comes. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accreditation 

message: ""Texas Tech University" redirects here. For other system schools, see Texas Tech University System."
No, it doesn't... That's the name of the article; there's no redirect. I don't know if this is holding over from a previous name for the page or if I'm just mistaken. I didn't change anything, since it might be like this on purpose? 76.213.69.155 (talk) 05:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. I fixed it. It now reads, "Texas Tech redirects here. For other system schools, see Texas Tech University System." Thanks! →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect...? 

message: I think we should make an effort to move this to GA status. Here's more info. We've already had a peer review. For GA discussion, create new subsections here. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's definitely in good shape for it now.  The main reason I backed off previously is because I disagree with some of the standards for FA status. Mainly, I don't like the fact that 'lists' aren't acceptable.  Not that I think we need a ton of lists, but the list of the different colleges, I believe, is very important.  The idea of some prose that includes the links to the different colleges seems really ham-fisted.  That list, as it is now, is so much more user-friendly than it would be in paragraph form.  Other than that main list and our heavy reliance on TTU's own information, I can't really see why anyone would object to it making FA.  --Elred (talk) 05:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that high standards are needed but agree that some things are taken too far. Ever taken a look at some poor editor trying to become an admin? That process is rediculously stringent. I'm putting together a TTU WikiProject. Since there aren't presently a lot who edit TTU articles, it's less formal than other WikiProjects—mostly in that it doesn't rate the class or importance of the associated articles. I'm not entirely convinced that rating those things is advantageous. Importance usually speaks for itself and class is usually included in one of the overlapping WikiProjects. Wordbuilder (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to helm the charge, I'll try to help as best I can, but it's just not really a big deal to me anymore.  I'd pit TTU's article up against any university's at this point.  Sure places like Harvard and even UT have more content and more historical information to disclose, but when it comes to accurately and thoroughly (and sexily) building the articles, they've got nothing on us.  I don't think TTU's article is lacking in any area, but I'll still keep tweaking it because nothing is ever perfect.--Elred (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Elred. FWIW, UT's article just got dropped from GA to B status. It had the disadvantage of too many editors trying to "improve" it and it slowly slipped in quality because there wasn't much of a concerted effort. History may be an area where we get knocked here. We may be able to add a bit but Tech is a much younger university than many in the nation so folks are just going to have to realize that. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's very likely that Tech will become a tier one, state flagship university in January of 2009.  The Texas Legislature recently heard appeals from seven universities, Tech included, with the hopes of gaining this status.  Most people involved believe it's likely that two or three schools will get the nod in January (joining UT and TAMU,) and by most accounts the front-runners are Texas Tech, University of Houston, and UT Arlington.  Tech, being the highest profile, the only large university in west Texas, the only one with med school & law school, and headed by a very influential lobbyist (Hance,) I would believe, is a lock.  That said, I'm somewhat more motivated to try to get this article FA or GA status.  If you guys are interested in trying to get the ball rolling I'll help work on anything we need.--Elred (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article push

message: I removed this paragraph due to plagiarism:
In 1996, Texas Tech took another important step toward enlarging its vision and reach. The Board of Regents established the Texas Tech University System, and appointed a chancellor to provide leadership and support for the combined academic enterprise. Regents Chair Ed Whitacre cited the size and complexity of the institution in making the change. "It's time", he said, "to take the university into the 21st century..."
It was taken verbatim from the section "Reaching New Heights" section here. It's information we need to have in the article, but not word for word. Almosthonest06 (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who added that or when. Good catch, though. At least it was only a small amount of text. I reworded it, expanded it slightly, and added the ref. →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect. Thanks Wordbuilder. Almosthonest06 (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: As I was looking for sources for the history section of the article, I came across a few sources that reported the official first day of classes on October 1, not September 30:
*College of Arts and Sciences
*Joining of Communities Led to Lubbock
*Timeline - Texas Tech Turns 75 - This one you cannot view without using the Google caching feature. I'm guessing they took it off the web. It might not work for you guys.
*Landing Tech may have been biggest step in Lubbock's First 100 Years
But Handbook of Texas says it is September 30. This source also puts it in September, but gives no date.
It's important information so I have decided to simply put Fall of 1925 for the date until we can come to some sort of agreement on what the official date really is. Almosthonest06 (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote for the October 1 date. More sources seem to support it, including the cached one which goes so far as to provide the time (8:00 a.m.) and number of students (914). →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What day did classes officially begin? 

message: I was curious if we should break up the history section into subsections? The first two paragraphs could be the early beginnings. The next subsection could cover the controversy over the name change and the outcome. The next could be a section about the 60s and 70s to 2000. The last could be about the university from 2000 and on. I'm asking because I don't want to make a change like that without getting second opinions. I believe it would be much more organized and the paragraphs in the history section are clearly defined to begin with. The only thing I can see wrong with it is that the paragraphs may not be long enough to constitute subsectioning. If that's the case, lets work on expanding them. Almosthonest06 (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My only problem with that is the lack of content.  There isn't much of a long, compelling story to tell that would justify a whole sequenced 'history' section or page (to my knowledge).  In other words, there haven't been sequential watershed events in the school's history that caused major changes in direction or scope.  But if you want to take a crack at writing one, go for it.  As it is now though I don't think what we have is enough of a story to make it work...and I'm not even really sure if TTU's history is that terribly interesting.  For the most part the school has eaten a Super Mario mushroom in the last 20-30 years, which is great, but that doesn't make for such a compelling history.  My impression is that Tech was just a sort of small regional school, Texas Technological College, that wasn't really known much outside of texas and west texas.  ...suddenly, I guess, as the population of the state increased and UT and TAMU started reaching capacity, TTU's enrollment and financial resources surged. Actually, if you could find well-referenced info about the stuff that I just wrote, that might be a decent history entry.  ...and be sure to say the part about the mario mushroom.  heheh.----Elred (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see the section broken up and expanded if that's possible. However, Elred may well be right in that there might not be much to tell. When I first expanded on the history, I had a tough time finding good material. Maybe there is more available now. I think it was under Grover E. Murray that Tech began to outgrow its "regional school" status. Something like this is a good source of highpoints that can be woven together to expand on the history section. Finally, if the Mario Mushroom isn't mentioned, it's probably not worth writing. →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History sectioning 

message: My new goal is to get our citations to over 100 by using all non-TTU references.  I welcome your help.  Most FA articles have a TON of references and we need to fill this up a bit.--Elred (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I try to limit internal TTU sources to last resorts if I can't find anything externally. I've been trying to add sources and plan to expand everything else later. Almosthonest06 (talk) 06:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm onboard. Around the time we started this latest push to improve the article, there were only 42 citations. We've nearly doubled that and several of the Texas Tech sources have been replaced with non-TTU sources. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now 65 of 104 citations are NOT from Texas Tech sources, including the Daily Toreador. Counting the Toreador as non-Tech then we're probably about 70% non Tech.  I think we should be pretty solid.--Elred (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We officially killed this part fellas.  We're now the best referenced article in the big 12 other than A&Ms version of war and peace.--Elred (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  non TTU references 

message: I rearranged the page in order to better match http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Universities/Article_guidelines .  Let me know what you think. I want to try to remove any room for objection when we appeal for FA.  I think we need a "research & endowment" section.  Much of the research stuff is currently in the research facilities portion, but we might need to move that around to conform.--Elred (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Bold Edit 

message: WP:MOS states:
:Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes.
So, we might have some trouble with this. Some articles overcome this by placing the image code directly above, rather than below, the second-level headings (e.g. 1080° Snowboarding).
However, there are featured articles that do not adhere to this convention:
*1880 Republican National Convention (This is how it looked when it was promoted.)
*1896 Summer Olympics
*1962 South Vietnamese Independence Palace bombing
Personally, I like it the way it is now. Of the articles I checked, more seem to ignore the MOS on this point than adhere to it. I just wanted to give y'all a heads-up in case someone makes it an issue. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just addressed this by removing two second-level (===) headings (enrollment and double-t).  I don't think those headings were necessary and I definitely think the page looks better with them removed.  I wasn't aware of the rule, but it was something that seemed a bit off to me yesterday when I was working on it.  Let me know what you think.--Elred (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

text: The pixel size parameter may be omitted; this will result in default image width of 180px (140px for portrait format), although this value can be altered in user preferences. If an image displays satisfactorily at the default size, it is recommended that no explicit size be specified. Examples of images which typically need more than the default size include lead images (see above) and detailed maps.
As with the other issue, not all FA's abide by this:
*2000 Sri Lanka cyclone
*2003 Atlantic hurricane season
*Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale
→Wordbuilder (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have the pictures set at 170px (which is only 10px smaller than the default size) and our portrait images are 140px (exactly as recommended).  I think we're fine where we are on that stuff, and the worst case is we just make the other images 10px wider.  As for the lead image, it's 230px right now' but enlarging it or any other photo to 300px right there would look ridiculous.  If it came down to it, we'd just have to move the first image from beneath the infobox and put in on the left.  --Elred (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Manual of Style calls for the lead image to be 300px. I don't know if this is a good idea here because of the infobox. It is recommended that all other images in the article be set to the default size (i.e., px not specified):
:The pixel size parameter may be omitted; this will result in default image width of 180px (140px for portrait format), although this value can be altered in user preferences. If an image displays satisfactorily at the default size, it is recommended that no explicit size be specified. Examples of images which typically need more than the default size include lead images (see above) and detailed maps.
As with the other issue, not all FA's abide by this:
*2000 Sri Lanka cyclone
*2003 Atlantic hurricane season
*Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale
→Wordbuilder (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have the pictures set at 170px (which is only 10px smaller than the default size) and our portrait images are 140px (exactly as recommended).  I think we're fine where we are on that stuff, and the worst case is we just make the other images 10px wider.  As for the lead image, it's 230px right now' but enlarging it or any other photo to 300px right there would look ridiculous.  If it came down to it, we'd just have to move the first image from beneath the infobox and put in on the left.  --Elred (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Another issue with images

message: Sorry guys, I've been gone for a couple days on a little vacation you could say before I go back up to school. Anyways, a couple of things I think we should try to expand would be, of course, the history section. Another one would be the 40,000 students by 2020. We could possibly find sources for the pros and cons of such an expansion. A third would be Tech's push for the third flagship university of Texas. A week or two ago there was a lot of talk about it being discussed during the next Texas Legislature meeting. I don't think there is too much to write about yet, but it has been a recent development. I hate to make it sound like I'm pushing this stuff on you guys, but I've been and will be kind of busy and will do all I can when I can. Just a few things for thought, however. Oh, by the way, the article looks fantastic!--Almosthonest06 (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have a little bit of info about the enrollment drive, but I kinda feel that too much info on that would be a recency problem. In other words, it's just a goal and the wheels that are in motion to make it happen are moving slowly.  If we get to 40k it'll be by steadily adding 1000 students a year or so and that's not a real compelling story.  The flagship pursuit is interesting, and mostly why my interest in getting this article FA suddenly re-surfaced recently, but I don't think there's really enough to merit mention in the article (more than what's already there).  By design, that whole process consists of peacocking of the 7 university representatives so it's not great stuff for the article.  However, I listened to Kent Hance's entire proposal in Austin and most of what he talks about is already covered in the article (I wouldn't be one bit surprised if they have read our page here to help put their proposals together). Hopefully in January of next year, we'll get to make a very tiny edit to the info-box that says "state flagship university". As for other expansions, mostly I think the history section could be expanded, and I want to make the research section one of the best parts of the page.--Elred (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few things to expand on 

message: We've had the shield logo as the main university image for a while, and it's ok, but I liked it better with the university seal there.  We had some debate a while ago about how to handle that, but I just did some looking around and I found this:  In the Big 12, Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Nebraska, Baylor, Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas A&M all use their university seal (only Oklahoma State does NOT use the university seal).  Also, of university featured articles Cornell, Dartmouth, Georgetown, Michigan State, Ohio Wesleyan, California-Riverside, University of Michigan, and Texas A&M all use the official seal (only Duke does not and uses a shield thing similar to ours). Would this not qualify as adequate justification for us to use the seal?--Elred (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be fine to go back to the seal. There were some stirrings awhile back and it looked like Wikipedia was moving toward prohibiting using the official seals in articles. As I recall, TAMU's article used a different logo for awhile. Until there is a policy in place, I see no reason not to use the seal. What about the individual schools? Continue to use the academics logo or switch those to the seal as well? →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool.  I think the colleges and schools should continue to use the coat of arms shield.  That's the perfect (and I believe intended) use for that shield.  The Seal, on the other hand, represent the entire university.  Academics, athletics, research, faculty, administration, etc.--Elred (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Seal debate