Talk:United States senior military college

message: Todd has made several revert's to thi's article, in spite of having it pointed out by several editor's that hi's overuse of apostophe's is both confu'sing, and gramattically incorrect. The use of an apostrophe, like all punctuation, is functional, and governed by quite clear rules. for example, in answer the the question "What can you see mate?" the answer "I can see the boys cock" can have three quite distint meanings.
* "I can see some young human males pal" is written "I can see the boys cock"
* "I can see the penis belonging to a boy" is written "I can see the boy's cock"
* "I can see a rooster belonging to several young men" is written "I can see the boys' cock"
The humble apostophe serves to identify which of these three possible meanings the writer is trying to convey. It has a purpose:it serves to clarify the meaning, and remove any possible confusion. it is, if you like, an instant disambiguation page
SMC's used in this article totaly reverse this accepted use of an apostrophe, leading to possible confusion. how would you refer to the college's grounds? as SMC'S still? or even, heaven help us, how about the pupils of several colleges? would they be SMC's' students?
We now have a new rule, it seems: " Apostrophe s is used to refer to the possessive and avoid confusion with the plural(except on certain parts of Wikipedia where it means the exact opposite)" does this realy make any sense? What purpose exactly does the apostrophe in the word SMC's (when used as a plural) have? I'm assuming that no one would make such effort to reinstate it it it was purely arbitrary (I've got a " ' " key on my PC, so will damn well use it), which leaves either cosmetic (perhaps it makes the word look prettier), or functional. If functional, then what information does it convey? would the meaning of the phrase be altered (or unclear) if it was not there, as clearly happens in the above examples? or would the meaning, in fact, be more clear without it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bilbobee (talk • contribs) 14:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  stray apostophes 

message: I've taken a little liberty and put up what I hope is a compromise version. Obviously, I won't object if someone reverts, but I hope instead we can discuss it first. IronDuke 17:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, it looks to me like this problem is solved, at least for this article, although there is still plenty to discuss. I'm going to take this out of mediation in a few days if no one objects. IronDuke 15:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken this out of mediation. I hope the resolution was satisfactory to all. Cheers. IronDuke 22:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise 

message: If 75.70.247.207 is so insistent upon making such changes, please cite your sources. To quote the line below, "...content must be attributable to a reliable source..." BQZip01 05:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's likely you won't see that, as the same requests have been made to User:Koonoonga, and met with derision, hostility and outright personal attacks.  I believe that anon IP to be the same one Koonoonga is editing from.--Vidkun 17:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We shall see... BQZip01 17:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Give a source

message: Adding the VMI clarification regarding baccalaureate ONLY is unneeded.  What does federal law say about SMC's?  It says that they must offer a baccalaureate degree.  Adding the VMI clarification doesn't meet the "so what?" test except to try and make VMI look more important.--Vidkun 14:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This constant reverting is getting quite annoying. If we want to add a quick blurb on each of the SMCs (yes it is SMCs and not SMC's...let's not get into that argument again), then why not add a quick section to cover each of them? This could clarify the differences between each without throwing additonal info into the mix. BQZip01 14:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "...except to try and make VMI look more important..." IMHO, this phrasing does not make the school seem more important, but less important. Its policies drastically limits its potential student population by negating anyone who doens't want to be in the military and thereby restricts the free flow of ideas. In this respect it is almost identical to the Service Academies (this is not a compliment of either institution). Anyone up for adding a new section? If so, I'll do A&M's section. BQZip01 15:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  here we go again 

message: Hope everyone likes it! BQZip01 17:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tweaked a few things in cleanup, but I'm figuring there will be gnashing of teeth soon.  Thanks for the good work, though!--Vidkun 17:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly! "The 'Summary style' article only contains the main references that apply to that article as a whole." All I am asking is for the main references. There are none right now. — BQZip01 — talk 02:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your citation needed spree, however, was primarily directed at subtopics.--Vidkun 18:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I guess we agree to disagree. I feel that the text put in adds to the article, as a whole, but needs references to be valid (some of the claims are pretty big). Tell you what, I'll add what I can find in the next couple of days. Fair 'nuff? — BQZip01 — talk 20:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major format change

message: Summary style includes a basic summary of information. While the history of each school and its accomplishments are certainly noteworthy, they also provide perspective to SMCs in general. What is the history of the 6 colleges? What makes each distinctive? Are there any people related to the school that have done amazing things? All of this provides an insight into SMCs as a whole. A single paragraph isn't going to hurt anything. If we keep it that short, it easily falls within the summary style. — BQZip01 — talk 18:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sigh

message: I see these lists on here about which schools only have cadets or which schools are all military. None of the SMC's are all military anymore. Two of the SMC's are still all military as far as resident students (VMI and The Citadel), but both VMI and The Citadel allow noncadets to take classes, whether as commuter students, evening students, or transient students. Someone posted on here that VMI was the only school to have only cadets. That is not entirely true. VMI only graduates cadets, but they allow noncadets to enroll in classes on campus as well such as transient students from Washington and Lee University.Todd Gallagher (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: SMC's that only have cadets

message: All VMI students are cadets.  Unlike ANY other Senior Military College, there are no day or "night" degrees or graduate degree programs offered at VMI for civilian students.  All VMI students must be cadets... period.  VMI's Registrar will confirm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.246.52 (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Respectfully. What's your point? Is there something wrong with the article? — BQZip01 — talk 03:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like user was responding to the incorrect statement by Todd Gallagher above...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.239.132.92 (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: VMI students themselves must be enrolled in the military program. However, that is misleading. Nonmilitary students are allowed to take classes at VMI. A perfect example are the students at Washington and Lee. West Point does not have a program like this. VMI, on the other hand, does. So my point is that none of the SMC's is exclusively military. There are classes at VMI that do not have all cadets in them. Here is a link to the school's own statement on the subject: http://registrar.wlu.edu/curriculum/exchange/exchVMI.pdf ,Todd Gallagher (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems somewhat legit to me, but I think this is more of a reciprocal agreement with other institutions. They really aren't VMI students, but they are taking some classes at VMI. Thoughts anyone? — BQZip01 — talk 23:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree they aren't VMI students. That is why it is confusing. I did transient study at two different schools when I was in college. You are still a student at your home school, but you are enrolled at the other school. VMI allows non-cadets to take classes at VMI, but they must be enrolled at another school which has an agreement with VMI. Hence, you will find nonmilitary students at VMI taking VMI classes . . . I guess a way to look at it is that VMI has nonmilitary students on campus who are transient students, or "exchange students" as they call them, but VMI is still the only SMC to graduate military students exclusively.Todd Gallagher (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Only VMI is all-military

message: Removed VWIL from the listing, as they aren't a SMC: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00002111---a000-.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.210.75.27 (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: VWIL Edit

message: I wanted to explain my edits to the VMI section of the article that references Forbes and US News rankings.  The original text stated that "According to several top Collegiate ranking systems, VMI is the most prestigious of the senior military colleges" and cited Forbes and US News.  It is accurate that Forbes ranked VMI the highest of the SMCs in its list of top schools.  Forbes, however explicitly excludes reputation (more or less synonymous with prestige) as a criteria.  That is why I changed the text to say that Forbes ranked VMI "highest".  I am attempting to make it clear VMI ranked highest, but wanted to avoid any confusion on the criteria Forbes used.  
With regard to US News, its ranking of VMI does not support (or, for that matter, refute) an assertion that "VMI is the most prestigious of the senior military colleges"  US News' rankings have VMI, The Citadel, Virginia Tech, and Norwich in different categories. This separation makes it impossible to determine where US News comparatively ranks the SMCs.  
It might make sense to move the ranking portion to its own section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocalafla (talk • contribs) 22:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Forbes, US News rankings

message: Buffs,
What is the case for "senior military college" as a proper noun?  Didn't want to revert without seeing if I'm missing anything Ocalafla (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper noun? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United States Senior Military College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vmi.edu/Show.asp?durki=454
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United States Senior Military College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130530013601/http://www.vtcc.vt.edu/About/ROTC.php to http://www.vtcc.vt.edu/About/ROTC.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The page claims that "Cadets at an SMC are authorized to take the ROTC program all four years, but taking a commission upon graduation remains optional, unlike other colleges where ROTC cadets are required to sign a contract to take commission before entering their final two years."
The U.S. code describing support for SMCs, (linked here, does not mention anything of the sort.
What is the source for this claim?
2601:5C2:103:FAA0:34A3:D183:9045:C542 (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Added one Billcasey905 (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim that SMC cadets are not required to commission 

message: Requesting indef ECP due to long-term, persistent but sporadic sockpuppetry by two indef-blocked users
*Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Strgzr1
*Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bob80q
Buffs (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.   Seagull123  Φ  15:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will do; thanks. Buffs (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: ECP request