Talk:University of Texas at Austin/Archive 2

message: I know we're all proud of UT but I don't think it technically deserves that title, as Rice is consistently ranked higher than UT in almost all nationwide college reviews. The old "arguably the most prestigious" is probably better.
There was a survey done out of the UK recently that rated UT tops in Texas.  I'll try to find the reference.  I would also be OK with switching to "arguably..." Johntex 01:18, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most prestigious in Texas? 

message: Actually, there are laws affecting building height... I'm not sure that they say no building can be taller than the capitol, but there ARE height laws for certain corridors of the city -- i.e., they don't want the sightlines of the capitol and UT tower to be obscured.  From I-35, for instance. Katefan0 22:39, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC) 
**Here's a reprint of an AAS article that discusses the two issues very briefly . Katefan0 22:42, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
*** Hi Katefan. Good article. I am well aware of the Capitol View Corridor statutes but the part I removed said that no building may be taller than the capitol. I knew that the Frost Bank building was taller so I don't think that is correct. According to that article so is One American Center. And I believe the view corridors are only for the capitol as well, not the tower. The Capitol View Corridor statutes are in Texas Gov't Code Ch. 3151. --Grouse 08:01, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laws 

message: University of Texas fans are known as "T-sippers" to those from other schools, especially those from Texas A&M. Bud Finlayson described the rivalry in his book, Mustang Country, "It was the country boys vs. the city slickers; the humble, hard working, hick farmers vs. the flashy, sophisticated, upper-crust snobs of society."[15]
I don't know that this really needs to be included in the article, but if it is kept, it needs some balance.  How about some Aggie stereotypes?  Maybe a section on Aggie Jokes?  Thoughts? · Katefan0(scribble) 17:40, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
:Well, first of all it's incorrect on two accounts.  Only A&M refers to UT in that manner, I don't know what 'other schools' the original writer had in mind.  The correct 'derogatory' term is "T-Sip"...never heard an Aggie say "T-Sipper", although it is possible that it was used more prominently when the author of the cited passage was roaming around in the 60's.  If you decide to keep it, my opinion would be to find a better (updated) source regarding the term in question.  As you suggest Katefan, Aggie jokes would be a good balance if you decide to leave H20's addition in.
::H2O, you added in this:  This was likely due in response to the popularity of Aggie jokes which portrays A&M fans as of low intelligence. Many Aggie jokes contain references to both.  This first sentence is pure speculation -- is it your own or can you source it?  If not it should probably be removed and the reference to Aggie jokes added in another way.  Also, my personal experience with Aggie jokes is that they poke fun at Aggies.  I don't think I've ever seen an Aggie joke that references a UT stereotype.  · Katefan0(scribble) 15:15, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
*I went ahead and changed the paragraph a bit, took out that speculation and added in a link to some Aggie jokes as well as an example of an Aggie joke.  See what you think.  Thanks · Katefan0(scribble) 15:36, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
:::I'm a little older and I remember reading a book of Aggie jokes years ago that had many references to "T-sippers", but it appears that term has mostly gone the way of "hep cat" and other obsolete slang and is now just "T-sip". There are a few jokes online that reference both, one of which I found is pretty tasteless.  As a Christian, I can't endorse such a joke but if someone did google search on "T-sipper aggie joke", they might find it and then they too could agree that it's pretty bad.  H2O 23:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An H2O addition 

message: I removed the Playboy link (and the comment) concerning the best-looking college girls. I think it's rather silly to include something like that, especially in the lead section. Also, the lead section reads almost like a brochure from the university itself. Some quotes in just the first 6 sentences: 'flagship', 'best public university in the state', 'one of the best in the nation', 'Public Ivy', 'no unversity in the Southwest can match breadth and quality of the research', 'one of the best research universities in the world', 'many top programs', 'national top ten programs'. I'm sure it's pretty good but there has to be a more neutral and subtle way to bring this to the reader's attention. I'd do it myself but I just stumbled on the article and know very little of this university. Junes 20:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Playboy link / overly enthusiastic lead section 

message: I notice that we have a fair amount of information here on the athletics programs, both intramural and extramural.  At the same time, I notice that other schools have separate articles on the athletics programs (see Nebraska Cornhuskers, Arkansas Razorbacks and Athletics at the University of Michigan).  I propose we create an article specifically on the UT Athletics.  There will be more than enough encyclopedic content, and it will keep from unbalancing this article.  I'd like to hear any arguments to the contrary.  If you're in support, please indicate which article title you prefer:  Johntex 02:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a fork sounds like a fine idea. How about Texas Longhorn Athletics? · Katefan0(scribble) 02:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I think this is a good idea as well. Perhaps University of Texas Athletics would be more clear to the casual observer. EWS23 16:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only potential problem with that name is that there are many campuses of UT. Does that mean all of their sports teams would be included? But only UT Austin are the Longhorns -- that's why I suggested that use. I'm not wedded to it though. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right. I suppose the other alternative is the lengthy suggestion above at #2. I do think your suggestion is better than #1 above. EWS23 17:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Athletics Article

message: We should really work on the Red River Shootout article since it might get some extra traffic this weekend. Johntex\talk 21:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 100th meeting of [[Red River Shootout]]

message: "The University of Texas originated in 1839, when the Congress of the Republic of Texas,qv in an act locating the seat of government, ordered a site set aside for a university. A subsequent act the same year allocated fifty leagues (231,400 acres) of land to the establishment and the endowment of two colleges or universities. Whether because of frontier conditions, scarcity of money, a feeling that higher education was the concern of the rich who ought to pay for it, or disagreement as to where the university should be located, nothing more was done by the Congress or by the Texas legislature until 1858..."Handbook of Texas Online Johntex\talk 15:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good enough for me, unless the other editor can show a conflicting source that says 1840. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of UT

message: An anon editor added this without attribution to the "Notable alumni" section
  Although not an alumnus of the University, John R. Hedrick (a Texas Tech University and St. Mary's Law graduate) has been  
  instrumental in the support of various academic disciplines at the University. Mr. Hedrick has been particularly helpful in
  the fields of medical technology and athletics. It is with great pride that the University has hooded Mr. Hedrick as an 
  "Honorary Longhorn" and further singles out Mr. Hedrick's devotion as an example for all non-alumni support.
Can any one verify the facts of that statement?  - Bevo 23:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't make any special mention of Red McCombs, don't see why this fellow -- as appreciated as his donations are -- needs mention either. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  John R. Hedrick ? 

message: I just rehauled the article, and, hopefully, made each section a little fuller and more distinct.
*Intro: I cut the introduction back a little, as I felt it jumped around between obscure and totally random details; for example, it mentioned McDonald Observatory as one of the University's holdings - that's for the list in the 'Campus' section, and the observatory is harding at the top of the list for notable buildings.
*History: The history was extremely skimpy. I took the linked article here and wrote a quick summary.
*Campus: I removed the separate section on the Main Building, as I thought that would work more fluidly as part of the 'Campus' section. I also moved the endowment section under the 'Campus' heading; its a better fit here than anywhere else, I believe.
*Students and academics: I added some basic academic information, and moved the student run publication list here. I'd like to work some more on this section; it looks a little bare.
*Athletics: Johntex made an excellent article at Texas Longhorn Athletics. Most of the content was copied and pasted over, which is pretty much what a branch page should do; however, almost the entirety of that new article could still be found here. I cut down quite a bit, and added some more references to Johntex's article.
*Impact: Jareha made this section a little less jarring and more fluid a few hours ago. After talking with Katefan0 earlier this evening, I think the section could be viable. There needs to be a bit of work done, though; I think the facts don't really tie the content in with the university. It's poorly written as well.
Let me know what everyone thinks. Thanks! -Rebelguys2 09:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just did it again. Beefed up, renamed, and rearranged the history, academic profile, and student life sections. I think the only sections still lacking are the Student life section, the Faculty and research subsection, and the Regional impact section. Concerning the last section: I thought it was unnecessary to talk in detail about Austin (non-UT) related events, as that belongs in the Austin, Texas article, and that it was unnecessary to list alumni, as there's an Arts and media section in List of University of Texas at Austin people. I also deleted most of the External links, as many of those pages have already been linked to within the article. Finally, I started a Notes section, which should make citation a little smoother. Now, I'd just like to work on those three sections, proofread the article as a whole, and then think if I'd like to get it to FA status. ;) Hey, UMich did it. -Rebelguys2 02:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, just wanted to take a second to congratulate you on your work. I haven't read it completely thoroughly, but I think the history section, at the beginning at least, is a little confusing. It references things that are not fully explained or described, and that without that context are rather confusing. I hesitate to copyedit the information because I have so many questions about the information that's included, and don't want to chop the live information up too much.  Let me put this into a temp page or something where I can ask questions inside the text for you. Is that okay?  I don't want to seem persnickety or ungrateful, for you've surely done a lot of work, but there are some things that confuse me about the text as it is now. · Katefan0(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 18:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I didn't end up with as many questions as I thought I had, but a few of them are interlinked.  I placed them at User:Katefan0/temp Thanks! · Katefan0(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 19:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll head over to the temp article and check it out. -Rebelguys2 19:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looked through the edits to the history section.  Looks very nice.  I still have some editing issues and questions on the first paragraph, which I've copied again into User:Katefan0/temp, along with some suggestions for wording changes.  Take a look when you get a chance.  Nice job! · Katefan0(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 04:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Rehaul 

message: What do you all think of splitting out an article on the Main Building? We already have more than enough content for a great article, in my opinion. jareha 06:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Main Building

message: I guess I'm gonna have to upload some of my own even though they're not that good. - Eagleamn 09:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No recent pictures? 

message: Jimbo Wales is coming to Austin for the SXSW conference.  In advance of this event, I would like to revive the monthly wikimeetup.  If we have an event in place by SXSW (March 2006), we could possibly ask Jimbo to attend one of our meetings! Please head to Wikipedia:Meetup/Austin and add your name to the list under the Future heading if you are interested. -Scm83x 11:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, anyone interested in the Austin Wikimeetup, please head over to Wikipedia:Meetup/Austin.  We may have a chance to meet Jimbo in March if we can get everything together! — Scm83x talk  05:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviving the Austin Wikimeetup 

message: Because classes are not in session, most of us current Longhorns are unable to get pictures of the Tower lit up in the extremely rare #1 lighting configuration following the Rose Bowl win.  If there is anyone in Austin willing to head over to campus and snap some pictures and upload them under public domain or GFDL, all of us displaced Longhorns would be immensely greatful.  The pictures will definitely be used in Texas Longhorn Athletics and a new article, coming soon, regarding the 2005 season in particular.  Thanks and Hook 'Em. — Scm83x talk  22:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tower picture request 

message: Hadn't read the article in a while, but I must say it seems much improved.  Keep up the good work (and congrats on the National Championship!) H2O 09:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks and double Thanks! Johntex\talk 23:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Came across this just now.  Rashtreeya Vidyalaya College of Engineering - Apparently these guys have a killer badminton team and a lot of other good things going for them as well.  May very well put UT out of business.  H2O 02:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article much improved

message: Added by 204.65.209.254
The University also contains an extensive underground tunnel system that links many of the buildings. The tunnel system is restricted to the public and is guarded by silent alarms. It is often rumored that many secret government programs are run in clandestine areas that can only be reached through these tunnels. Many theorists believe that the common evacuations of the Welch science hall are actually related to events taking place in the underground tunnels.
Any merit to this? Seems to go against Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. --Christopherlin 16:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The conspiracy theory part of it seems a little too dubious to include. But we could maybe have a line or two somewhere about how students sometimes fall afoul of the law while down there, I guess.  I'm not even sure that's really worthwhile. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The tunnels are worthwile enough to (briefly) mention. And unless there are sources for conspiracy, that bit doesn't belong in the article. jareha 18:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I don't see all that much merit to including the tunnels in the article.  They are really just a means of maintaining the buildings, and its not like we have a discussion of the Central Cooling stations, the University's power plants, or even the University's nuclear station or storage vaults --- each of which are more impressive than the tunnels.  Discussion of unproven conspiracy theories really make us sound alarmist. SteveHopson 19:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, the tunnel discussion should go.  David 18:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe take out the conspiracy theory stuff if it's unsourced, but the tunnels are definitely there.  I know of some people who were expelled for breaking into them, and any UT student who ever looks down when they're walking will have seen the grates covering the tunnels any number of times. Ario 23:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm taking out the conspiracy theory stuff.  The University does engage in a large amount of classified research, but it takes place in the J.J. Pickle Research Center, the MCC Building, and the Leander facility, not in the tunnels. I'll rework the description of them to remain accurate. Kd5mdk 08:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tunnels addition by 204.65.209.254