Talk:University of Texas at Austin/Archive 2

OU/A&M

I'm sure most folks who'd be interested in this page are former Longhorns, BUT, as a native Texan and 4th generation Longhorn, I take issue with the way the page portrays the OU-UT rivalry as "the biggest." It's definitely strong, but I think the rivalry -- the pure rivalry -- is much bigger between UT and A&M. I think the EVENT of the UT-OU football game is bigger because it's surrounded by the state fair, but the rivalry itself is not. I for one would like to see it changed in the text. Anybody else with thoughts? Katefan0 16:41, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Speaking as a 2003 graduate, I think the UT-A&M rivalry has flagged a little since after the bonfire disaster. Beating OU seems to be a much bigger deal now. --Grouse 21:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm a 2001 graduate, fairly soon after the Bonfire when arguably emotions were even more charged. One year out from the disaster, yeah, I'd say it was less a concern. But not after that. Katefan0 01:27, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

College football is very cyclical. Even the best programs go through their highs and lows. During the past few years, Oklahoma has been very high, and Texas A&M has been relatively low. Right now, UT-OU pretty much decides the Big 12, so currently it's the bigger rivalry. The Red River Shootout has championship implications, while the Lone Star Shootout is more for bragging rights. Historically, I'd say UT-A&M is the bigger rivalry, but it's also a pretty friendly one since most students at UT have friends or siblings that go to A&M and vice versa. OU, on the other hand, is the school UT just loves to hate. --Chris Harrison 06:04, 8 Aug 2005

I must respectfully disagree. The rivalry is about more than who decides the Big-12. As for UT/A&M being a friendly rivalry, not anywhere I'm familiar with. Sometimes, but not often. Current trends must be taken into consideration, but also balanced against the weight of history, and to me that makes a UT/A&M rivalry the winner hands down. · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:24, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I graduated in 1991. The OU game has meant more recently, but an article like this needs to consider the long haul. Considering everything from the way the UT/atm fight songs mention each other, to the fact that they are each others oldest rivals, to the fact that they still close their regular seasons against each other, there is no doubt that atm is the bigger rivalry for UT. Johntex 01:20, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • Let's not forget that not only are they mentioned in each others' fight songs, when UT wins a football game, the top of the tower gets lit burnt orange. But when UT beats A&M at football, the entire tower gets illuminated. Not so for OU. Katefan0 16:28, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Good point Katefan0. Another example would be mascot kidnappings. I've never heard of OU kidnapping or branding Bevo. Off the sports field, UT/atm are also in a very real competition for state funding. They are also competing for high school students in a way that an out of state school is not. We should also mention the new Long Star Rivalry series that UT/atm have implemented to carry the great rivalry into other sports. Johntex 17:05, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I have found strong evidence to change the article to reflect that the Aggies are UT's biggest rival: A Sports Illustrated poll on "State's biggest sports rivalry"[1] shows:

Texas-Texas A&M

56%

Texas-Oklahoma

15%

Cowboys-Texans

7%

Also, if you Google "UT" +"biggest rival" you get more hits with "A&M" than "OU". Johntex 21:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • An unscientific web poll is "strong evidence"? I don't think a "Googlefight" is a good arbiter of factual data either. Your earlier arguments were much more convincing. That said, I'm not going to revert this article. --Grouse 21:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree that this poll isn't exactly the most scientific, but it is interesting as supplementary evidence to our earlier points. I think the earlier discussion was convincing enough. And if not we can always RFC or something. Don't want to get too many feathers ruffled. Katefan0 21:36, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • It is a difficult topic because it is centered around people's opinions. While a web poll is not perfectly scientific evidence, it does go some way to show prevaling opinion. Nowhere on UT's website is it going to say "Our biggest rival is ___" The closest thing might be the fact that they chose to create a special "rivalry series" with atm, not ou. Here are two more tidbits: (1) The atm rivalry goes back longer. (2) If you start-up EA Sports NCAA football, play as Texas, and select "Rivalry Game", the default comes up that you are playing against atm. The other options you can select are ou, Baylor, and Texas Tech. This is true in the 2004 and 2005 Xbox versions, which I have selflessly researched to contribute to this article. I'm not claiming this is scientific, just more evidence I forgot to mention earlier. Johntex 21:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • "The closest thing might be the fact that they chose to create a special "rivalry series" with atm, not ou." That is the most persuasive argument so far in my opinion. --Grouse 00:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ANother article came out about the UT OU rivalry http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=880C7357-EB9A-4476-B7F7-0CDBB8A66468 The article shows that the rivalry extends beyond football with "The term Red River Shootout or Red River Rivalry is also sometimes applied to meetings between the two schools in sports other than football." My personal take is that OU is more significant because 1: its interstate versus intrastate allowing the Governors to get involved with side bets, 2: its one of the last three neutral site games left in college football (The other two are Florida/Georgia and Army/Navy), 3: The game has consistently had more national implications "since 1945, one or both of the two teams has been ranked among the top 25 teams in the nation coming into 60 out of 65 games", 4: We have a designated trophy for the winner with "The Golden Hat" since 1929, the overall A&M rivalry has only just recieved a trophy with the "lone star showdown rivalry, and that is on a trial basis 4: As this recent Daily Texan article shows, The OU rivalry replaced the Vanderbilt rivalry in 1929 as our biggest http://www.dailytexanonline.com/media/paper410/news/2005/10/04/Sports/Red-River.Rivalry.Eyes.Of.Nation.Have.Watched.Shootout.Grow.Since.Wwii-1008305.shtml Dothivalla 7:07, 08 Oct 2005

Hi Sothivalla. Thanks for your points. The WOAI article is actually plagarized from the Wikipedia article on Red River Shootout. Therefore, it is a circular source since that just refers back to something we wrote and it doesn't add anything new to the question or carry any import as an external source. On your other points (1) I agree the interstate nature allows for a special dynamic with the governors, but you also get in-state dynamics about UT vs A&M with legislators kidding each other in press conferences, etc. (2) The neutral site does add something special to the OU game, but Thanksgiving weekend adds something special to the A&M game, and the neutral site is likely on the way out as well (3) national tile - yes, I think you are right about that if you look at football only, but the article already mentions that OU is an important football rival. (4) yes, that is a good point about the trophy (Texan article:) The Texan article never actually says that the OU rivalry is the biggest rivaly. Even if it did, it would be one opinion in one article. Seach other Texan articles and you will find the same thing said about A&M. Johntex\^talk 16:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I contacted WOAI about their taking our Red River Shootout article and using it as their own content, in violation of our copyright. They have removed the article. Johntex\^talk 21:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

This argument is over thanks to Ivan Maisel at: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=maisel_ivan&id=2188586 "We would get 90,000 Texas fans in our stadium that would see the game every other year," Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodds said in Dallas on Friday. "Now we get 37,500 fans here every year. Do the math -- that's more than 50,000 Texas Exes who could see their team's biggest game of the season.--207.248.228.52 14:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Dodds comment must be examined in context. He wants to expand the stadium. He wants to generate more ticket revenue. It was coming into Texas/OU weekend. And not just any Texas/OU weekend, but the 100th, with his football team riding high. Of course he will play up the significance of the game, he is a politician. It is a data point that should absolutely be considered, but plenty of UT AD's and coaches have made plenty of similar comments about A&M. I don't personally find it a compelling argument to change the article. Johntex\^talk 16:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why do we have to pick a particular team as our biggest rival? I think there are several good arguments for both sides. The article should reflect that debate, as well as the facts (A&M is the oldest, but Oklahoma has been the most competitive in recent years, etc.). My $0.02. Bbatsell 00:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The biggest intERstate rivalry is Oklahoma

The biggest intRAstate rivalry is A & M

Also maybe there is a difference between ATHLECTIC (football) rivalry and an entire school rivalry. Maybe most of the football rivalry should be moved to Texas Longhorn Athletics? And in this article should talk more about the all-around rivalry between all aspects of the university? My $1.02 (inflation). From a Sooner fan > WikiDon 20:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

PS: Please vote for a new U-Tx Athletic Logo...!!! Link @ the Bottom of the page.

Most prestigious in Texas?

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)

• The UK survey was probably basing its judgement on research sort of stuff... But I agree that by normal standards of "prestige," Rice beats UT by a long shot.

• Despite Rice's distinguished research output I don't think it matches the breadth or depth of UT's. But there is no argument that Rice is much harder to get into than UT. Why not explain these nuances instead of saying "arguably" which doesn't really tell much to people who aren't already familiar with these institutions? --Grouse 17:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• In that case, we should just leave out "prestige" altogether and focus on describing the university.

anon changes

mm. An anon just made a boatload of changes, both substantive and structural, to the article. Some of it I agree with, some of it not so much. (Don't think we need a separate category for "student publications" given that it's barely a pp. It makes the article look choppy.) Also he or she changed back "the most prestigious" to "one of the most prestigious." As I recall there was signifciant discussion here about that. Anybody feel like it justifies a revert? I wish there was a prohibition against anon editing. Katefan0 21:10, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think the anon changes should be reviewed by the community and some kept. The most prestigious comment definitely needs to be changed until there is a consensus from the community. - Scm83x 02:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I started poking around a little bit. I think most folks would agree that in terms of prestige, Rice wins. I liked Grouse's suggestion up above, but I think it might be difficult to do that in a precise way without devolving into too much blah blah blah. I looked at US News's 2005 rankings of all national universities -- Rice ranks #17, UT Austin ranks #46, and A&M ranks #62 [2]. Maybe the easiest thing to do would be: "UT is the most prestigious public school in Texas." That eliminates talk about Rice; what do you think? Or maybe "UT is one of the most prestigious schools in Texas, behind only the private Rice University" or somesuch. Katefan0 22:38, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but with rankings based on research UT is #15 and Rice doesn't even make the top 50. As an academic I would generally consider a faculty position at UT more desirable than one at Rice (exceptions for certain fields, but not for mine). I agree that an undergraduate education from Rice is certainly considered more prestigious than one from UT but I do not think that is equivalent to the prestige of the whole university. I'm sure it's possible to sum all this up in a well-written sentence for the main page, but it's 1 a.m. here and I think I'll go to bed instead. ;) --Grouse 00:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the rankings I referenced are holistic -- they take into account competition, research, student faculty ratio and a host of other things. So, I think you are slicing hairs too finely here. Also, where is the line drawn? Do we have a sentence that says "Texas Tech is widely recognized to have a better womens' basketball program, but Texas is more competitive?" That said, I'd still be interested in seeing how you propose to craft some sort of inclusive sentence. Katefan0 01:40, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

"One of the most prestigious" is far better than "most prestigious." As the discussions on this board have demonstrated, "most prestigious" is a contentious claim that we shouldn't be touting as an objective fact. But I bet we can all agree to "one of the most prestigious".

The previous comment is by User:130.58.91.246. Please Wikipedia:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages. "One of the most prestigious" is a Peacock term which is only noncontroversial because it has almost no meaning. While I'm aware of several metrics and rankings that would make the university the most prestigious public university in Texas, I'm not aware of any that would counteract that. Would you like to share any with us? In any case, one might say that we should then avoid claims of prestige altogether and just stick to listing these metrics. I'm not convinced that's a bad idea. --Grouse 01:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

P.S. UT and A&M admissions statistics are available: here and here

Poll on University Naming Conventions

A new survey has been created to assess consensus with respect to university naming conventions, specifically regarding the usage of terms like "University of Texas" vs. "University of Texas at Austin". The poll addresses this issue both in the specific case of the "University of Maryland" and proposes an amendment to Wikipedia:Naming conventions which could impact a large number of additional pages, including this one. Dragons flight 17:37, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Laws

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 [3]. 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)
    • And I am well aware of what information you removed. My point, perhaps too subtly made, was that some of what you deleted can be salvaged by repairing it with correct information. Katefan0 16:16, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
      • I am afraid your point is still too subtle for me. What information would you have included here? If there were actually a law that actually prevented the tower sightlines from being obscured, then I agree that would be relevant information. But while it is easy to find information about the law that prevents the capitol sightlines from being obscured, I can find nothing about any law that does the same for the tower. I am happy to be proven wrong. --Grouse 10:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Whoops, sorry. I just noticed that you had responded on this earlier discussion. I think what I was mistaking is that the capitol sightlines, while not extending to the tower, nevertheless end up protecting its sightlines too because the two are in such close proximity and sort of along the same plane of view. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:19, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Research

"No public or private university in the Southwest United States can match the breadth and quality of the university's research endeavors"

This might be true... but it's phrased like an admissions pamphlet, not an encyclopedia article. It would make sense to list facts about the "university's research endeavors," but a statement like this really has no place. -- 130.58.91.246 (unsigned)

Recent deletion of material regarding status, rankings, etc.

H2O last night deleted most of the information in the article referencing UT's academic rankings, status among other colleges, etc., citing Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism. Which are good standards. But I believe the information that was removed from the article is factually accurate and can be backed up by sourcing. So I reverted those edits. Grouse, since most of those additions were yours, can you dig up some references? I've asked H2O to come to the talk page and discuss his changes. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:16, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that I removed anything of relevance. I left most of the ranking info in the article but moved it to the body of the article where it belongs. However, it needs to be factually verified. This article is oozing stereotypical UT superiority and snootiness. Please for crying out loud, tone it down!! I can't read this article without gagging. Is it necessary to brag incessantly about your school's achievements? Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. Why not just supply facts and let them speak for themselves? If they are verifiable, then supply them in a neutral fashion. It is irrelevant what Playboy thinks of the girls at UT (at least in this article). What did UT have to do with the success of Dell? Michael Dell didn't even bother to finish his degree. As far as the UT Longhorn football team, from the years 1994 - 2003, in 1994 UT finished ranked 32, '95- 15, '96- 22, '97- 76!, '98- 14, '99- 15, 2000- 14, 2003- 23 only 2001-2002 finished in top ten. This is an encyclopedia article, not a marketing brochure. There needs to be a quality article on UT, as it is no doubt a significant university, but as it stands now, it is just turning people off and reinforcing the stereotype. H2O 15:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this article turns people off. But as you pointed out, it's not a marketing brochure, so why would anyone care if it did?--Grouse 18:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

"Reinforcing the stereotype?" IMO, the only people who think there is a stereotype are those with chips on their shoulders about UT. None of the information in the article is inaccurate, unsourced or otherwise inappropriate. Why shouldn't it remain? What else would you balance it with? "UT's anthropology program is ranked last of all public universities?" "Some people think UT grads are arrogant?" What's the point in adding information like that? I don't see any gaping differences in the way the UT page is treated, versus any other university's page here on Wikipedia. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:20, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

A few more thoughts... By the way I don't have any personal axe to grind against UT itself, although on occasion I have come across the condescending attitude I mentioned earlier and I personally don't care for it. I more or less came across this article when I found myself collaborating with some other Texans on some topics in which I found we had some common interests. Every now and then I would read the article, and it seemed to be getting worse as time went on. I knew when I made the edits, it would stir things up, but I really think this article needs help, maybe not mine, but I really think UT deserves a better article than this. I personally would be more interested in hearing more about the history of the University, what makes it unique, etc, instead of the constant, "we're bigger, better, we have more money, our girls are prettier, our football team wins more games, and by the way, OU sucks." What place does THAT have in an encyclopedia?! H2O 00:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Not to sling mud, but if you take a quick look at the Texas A&M University page, there is just as much "boasting and bragging" as some purport there to be on this page. I think that most university pages will try to cast their schools in a positive light. I believe the page is encyclopedic. An admissions brochure certainly would not include information about the Tower shooting rampage of the 60s. The simple fact is that most all of the "bragging" information on the page can be verified and measured according to accepted standards and practices. As for the OU references, it is a part of the school's traditions and should be included. I think that equal references can be included in the OU article and should be, because it is a part of their traditions. Also, please discuss changes on the talk page before deleting things wholesale. - Scm83x 04:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

My argument isn't so much with the information as with the style (or lack thereof) in which it is presented. It's kind of like "we're better than you - let us rub your nose in it". I haven't really looked at the A&M page, but if what you say is true, then it ought to be fixed as well. H2O 16:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I did just now skim over the A&M article and after reading the first paragraph wanted to barf. I guess I'll go over and stir up the Aggies now. I must say it has been nice chatting and sipping T with you. Must remember to take my mask and cape. H2O 16:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, we at least agree on one thing: the A&M page also makes me want to vomit. ;) Don't forget to take your chip with you. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:20, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'm back now - I'll deal with the Aggies later. Maybe after we get UT's article straightened out we can go gang up on them. Honestly, Katefan0, don't you think your alma mater deserves to have more written about its history than in 1839 somebody dreamed up this wonderful school and then 130 years later some idiot shot a bunch of people (he probably had a REAL chip on his shoulder). The ranking info has its place but can't it be put in the body of the article and not featured so prominently and "in your face" as the article Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism suggests? You said yourself that you agree with those principles. H2O 00:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the current article is a fine thumbnail. There's always room to improve articles -- I personally think every article can stand improvement. But there's a point of diminishing returns -- too much information and the article gets too long. An encyclopedia article isn't an infodump of every statistic or fact available, it's a thumbnail representation of an issue or subject. Rankings and status are integral to universities' existence and they in large part define public perception as well so I don't think it's at all inappropriate to include that information in the introduction (as seems to be standard practice for most articles here). I fail to see how that is "in your face" -- unless the reader already has made up their mind on the topic (see chip). I said the page had good guidelines, but I never said I agreed with it in its entirety (in fact this is one of the places where I disagree). Personally, I don't think there's anything inappropriate in the information that's presented on rankings etc. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:59, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I established the selectiveness of UT and A&M by looking at their admissions statistics, and there are links to said statistics elsewhere on this talk page, added during a previous discussion. I am not about to check every other public university in Texas, since it is my experience that UT and A&M are the only ones that reject large numbers. If you have any counterexamples, please post them here. Both general university rankings, and research-based rankings are listed elsewhere in this talk page. The Carnegie Foundation has a widely used classification of universities, and here are the listing sfor Doctoral/Research Universities—Extensive in case you would like to compare with peer institutions. In the future, please read through talk pages and see what has already been discussed before making wholesale deletions. Thank you, --Grouse 18:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

What are wholesale deletions? You mean like "in bulk"? I used to sell wholesale irrigation equipment. I always try to "be bold" in my edits. If people don't like them, they can always revert. I am sorry if I offended anyone or stepped on anyone's turf, but I really do think this article needs work. In my opinion, school rankings and "prestige" deserve much less prominence than they are given. My own school (Texas Tech) chancellor recently spent $450,000 on a marketing campaign for some Austin firm to improve our image. What an idiot! He should have spent that money on improving the quality of education at our school. H2O 00:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes. H2O, you *should* be bold. But as the howto page says, Wikipedia:Be bold "but don't be reckless." As that page points out, if you are making a change that you think might be controversial, then you should read the talk page to see if it has already been discussed. A lot of the prestige stuff had been discussed on the talk page before. The article definitely needs work and substantive additions, and I hope you can help. Thanks for the spelling fix. --Grouse 15:10, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Point taken. I will try to be a little more "sensitive" in the future. I will say this -- I had skimmed (but not thoroughly read) the talk page earlier, and I saw that an anonymous poster had questioned the line about the "quality and breadth" of the research and had basically been told that since he / she was anonymous that their opinion didn't matter. I disagree, and I do believe that particular line goes way over the top. Personally I don't know what I can add, but I will make suggestions to make this article more readable for the general public. There really ought to be something about the history of the school in its opening paragraph, and I still think the ranking info should be toned down and moved to the body of the article. H2O 15:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Reverted anon's changes

An anon just changed the text of the intro to read "Recently has consistently been ranked the top public university...." and gave this as a justification in his edit summary: (UT - Consistently ranked best public university in Texas 'recently'. Texas A&M University was ranked higher in 1997-1999 and tied in 2000.) Personally, I think the past five years of being ranked tops is enough to just say is consistently ranked, without needing "recently." Also, if we're going to start breaking it down by year, what were the rankings pre-1997? Should we also say "and before 1997 was ranked...?" This is unnecessary detail IMO. And if the anon wishes to press his case, I'd like to see what source he is using. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:08, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

An H2O addition

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)

Bud Finlayson

Bud Finlayson, a paraplegic who attributes his disability to injuries received while playing football, avowed Aggie fan, and son of a UT graduate, 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." [1]

I think that this paragraph should be removed. First, his connection to the "University of Texas" (what this article is about) is extremely weak. Second, it is interjected randomly. Lastly, and most importantly, Bud is not an prominent nor a famous person (if John Madden, Mack Brown, or Dennis Franchione had written that statement than it should be included; however, I don't even know if Bud Finlayson is a real person). If we allow that to be included then nearly any quote could be included in any article. For example:

Joe Freshman, a freshman who tried to walk on to UT's football team but was cut after a week, a current student at the University of Texas, recently wrote the book titled The Aggies are Dum(sic). The book is still unpublished(as is Mustang Country) wrote "the Aggies are dum and the Longhorns are inteligint" He bases this on the fact that the average SAT score at UT is 1230 while at A&M it is 1183.

--Nyr14 July 4, 2005 05:15 (UTC)

Personally I agree, the article doesn't need it. But there was an editor here a few months ago who absolutely insisted that the article should reflect Aggies' stereotypes of UT and this is the way he chose to do it. I just added the part about Aggie jokes as an attempt at balance, instead of getting into an edit war over it. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 4, 2005 06:42 (UTC)

The source is not credible, reliable, or authoritative and shouldn't be in an encyclopedia article. I vote to remove it. --Nyr14 July 4, 2005 13:43 (UTC)

I was looking over some of those edits; he obviously is not a fan of UT. He based his edits on Wikipedia:Avoid_academic_boosterism, but some of the things he removed are allowed by that very policy. For example, the playboy sentence that he removed, "Playboy considers UT number one in their "Top 10 Colleges With The Best-Looking Girls"[4]." "avoids vague terms" (i.e. the sentence didn't say that someone like Bud Finlayson who had a dad that went to the school thinks that UT girls are hot), does not bury the reader in facts (there's only one fact), and it's "precise and honest" when "citing college and university rankings". As such it should be readded.

There are also various othe objective ranking sentences that could be added. UT is considered to be the 8th "best value college" according to th Princeton Review [5] and the 15th best college in the world by The Times Higher Education Supplement, among others. --Nyr14 July 4, 2005 14:31 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. He originally came here complaining that "prestige" rankings should be erased because it might make Aggies people who didn't go to UT feel bad. (?) I wouldn't oppose re-adding the Playboy link or removing the Finlayson info, but I'm not sure we need the CNN ranking or the Times supplement ranking. It's sort of overkill I think, unless you would just want to maybe add them as in-line links next to the "prestige" information. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 4, 2005 16:08 (UTC)

I added a link to the THES ranking, readded the Playboy ranking (but I'm not sure if it should be in that first part), and removed the Bud Finlayson quote (H2O says he won't be back until November so I didn't wait for his response).

--Nyr14 July 4, 2005 19:43 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't expect my playboy addition cause so much controversy. Maybe we should remove it from the lead and add a prestige section? --Utdelirium

Removed Playboy link / overly enthusiastic lead section

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)

Hmm... I just read the comments above on the same topics. I still stand by my opinion, especially about the Playboy part - it looks really, really silly to have a link to a softporn magazine's beauty contest in an article about an academic institution. As for the neutrality of the lead section, well I can only say that I really have no bias either way towards this university (I just wikisurfed to this article by coincidence). And to me, it does seem an excellent example of 'academic boosterism' Junes 20:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV template

I've added a much needed NPOV template. Some parts of the article, but primarily the lead paragraphs, are in serious need of revision. I feel it is unacceptable that this university is being used as the example for avoiding academic boosterism, yet no one is editing the content. The entire article should be rechecked and made more neutral. It is okay to praise UT, but as a user stated above, much of it reads like a brochure instead of an encyclopedia.

All the information is properly sourced, verifiable and pertinent. Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism says to: Avoid vague terms of praise. All the information in the lead is sourced, therefore it is not vague. It says to Be precise and honest. All the information in the lead paragraph is properly summarized, therefore it is precise and honest. I don't see how else this particular guideline applies beyond these two general rules of thumb, which the article adheres to. I'd also point out that this is simply a voluntary guideline, which reasonable people are free to ignore or interpret as they feel is necessary. In my case, I think the article is fine and doesn't violate any of these tenets, though in the interest of full disclosure I think it's a rather silly guideline. The article CERTAINLY does not violate NPOV standards. Can you please explain how it does? Citing Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism, which is only a guideline that states at the outset is free to be ignored, is not enough of a reason to throw up an NPOV template. · Katefan0^(scribble) 06:55, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am well aware that these rules can be ignored, but you cannot at the same time argue by the rules and then say "Well, even if they're being broken, we don't have to follow them anyway." I think the avoiding academic boosterism article is very logical and merits following. This article does infact use vague terms of praise, especially peacock/weasel terms, such as "considered one of the..." Even if this were untrue, the lead section merely lists a bunch of facts about the school's merit and nothing else. This is being precise and honest, but not doing it in the right way. NPOV means showing more than one side. The rankings are not numerical values either, and also vague ("consistently"). I feel a summary of the university should include more than simply praising it, and I am certainly not against UT as I am a currently a student there. For example, the lead paragraphs also seem alarmingly current. It doesn't include anything about the history or origins of the university. Also, as a side note, I feel that such lavish praise causes the opposite effect, allowing readers to feel that whoever edited the article is insecure about the merits of UT and thus needs to list everything good about it. I doubt the Harvard or Princeton articles would spend so much time praising themselves. The problem is not only in the lead paragraphs; other areas are troublesome. Regardless, I feel from the reading the discussion here that there is at least some NPOV dispute, so the template should remain up if nothing else. -- Hawkhkg11

You're right, NPOV means showing more than one side where more than one side exists in any certain dispute. But what exactly would be the "other" side? What is the dispute here? Aggies saying UT sucks? A sentence that states that Harvard is more prestigious? It's just not appropriate. Properly cited facts are properly cited facts; there is no NPOV dispute here as far as I can see, and so far you've failed to persuade me that there is. Maybe you should be more specific. I'm not opposed to discussions about things you feel could be improved in the article -- I view articles as always having the potential for improvement. But to suggest that the article is POV because it states facts about UT's prestige/research/etc. seems a little chip-on-shoulderish to me. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:20, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

My edits to the intro

Austin is rated ~10 amongst publics by the US News annual college ranking (the widely read standard). This is good but does not qualify for use of the superlative "best". A majority of students are admitted under the top 10% scheme, which applies to all publics. Selectivity implies college side decision making, but this isn't the case in Texas, so I've removed the claim. Of the top 10 programs specified, I only removed one (law) but I'm sure there are many other inaccurate claims. The widely read standard ranking for most of those programs is the US News rankings. lots of issues | leave me a message 19:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it's much better now. It's a common misunderstanding that if some comments are factual, that this automatically implies that they're neutral as well. Phrases like 'no university matches the breadth and depth' are overly pompous. I do still have a little problem with the word 'flagship'. Unless this is some sort of university idiom that I don't know about, it could be interpreted as boasting. Maybe it could just be replaced with 'the most prominent' or 'the best known' or something like that. Also, the inclusion of one or two sentences on its history or some other things would make the lead paragraph more balanced. Junes 11:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

"Flagship" is a common term for the most prominent university in a university system. A&M is also its "flagship." It's not a peacock term, it's a real academic phrase. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:23, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the copyedits to the film information in the article. As it says, the UT RTF program and Austin's film industry are inextricably linked. Therefore, the information is proper for inclusion. Also, Richard Linklater IS an alum [6]. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:40, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

You can revert the deleted (and unrelated) praises about the RTF program, I don't mind that much. (If you look at the history, I originally wrote the RTF section by copying some of it from the Austin article. I realize now it does not belong and that's why I am removing it. I am currently in RTF and find the information inaccurate. Films like Slacker and Spy Kids have nothing to do with UT.) However, I do feel it absolutely neccesary to clear up the absurd notion and habitual misunderstanding that Linklater is a UT alumnus. He has eminent and important connections to UT and the RTF department but HE WAS NEVER A STUDENT THERE. The Christian Science Monitor article is erroneous. Check [7] and [8]. Linklater himself has said many times he was never a UT or RTF student, and my film history teacher in RTF, who is friends with Linklater, has reiterated the same. - Hawkhkg11

Linklater went to Sam Houston State but never graduated. Bbatsell 21:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Once again I toned down the intro. The THES rankings place the school in the top 20. A high position but not preeminent. I removed the "Public Ivy" reference. Unlike the other sourced praise (the respected and widely read US News and THES), that book is just another college search guide. And the association with the Ivy league is misleading. It's not necessarily a claim to prestige, which is the mark of the Ivy League, but a decent quality of education. Can we remove the NPOV tag now? lots of issues | leave me a message 21:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

"Public Ivy"

... is not only applied by "one college search book." It's defined as such by our own article Public Ivies, beyond other printed references, including here[9] and other places. I will restore the information. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:37, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, I have added back in "one of the best" publics in the nation, which it is. US News rankings of public universities places UT as #14. This is arguably "one of the best." The link is premium content, but for anyone who is curious, here are the rankings:

1. University of California–Berkeley 2. University of Michigan–Ann Arbor; University of Virginia 4. Univ. of California–Los Angeles 5. U. of North Carolina–Chapel Hill 6. College of William and Mary (VA) 7. Univ. of Wisconsin–Madison 8. Univ. of California–San Diego 9. U. of Illinois–Urbana-Champaign 10. Georgia Institute of Technology 11. University of California–Davis 12. University of California–Irvine 13. Univ. of California–Santa Barbara 14. University of Texas–Austin

· Katefan0^(scribble) 14:50, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

If the Public Ivy claim must remain then fine but think over the ranking. ~#50/#14 (publics) is a good ranking. But it is not among the best. Is an SAT 1250 (90th percentile) or an A-, among the best scores? Nope, good, but grouping it with the best is boasting. What about 14 out of 162? I don't see how a top 10% school is "one of the best". The introductory paragraph is crammed full of every national plaudit, school champions could find. That is simply incompatible with the mission of Wikipedia, a place for hard information. lots of issues | leave me a message 22:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that "top 10%" and "one of the best" are incompatible. Here is an example: If a pro athelete or sports team finished in the top 10 of 100 competitors, it would be very reasonable to call that person or team "one of the best" in the competition. If you look at the population (or GDP) of the roughly 200 countries in the world, it would not be a stretch to call the top 10% the most populous, (or the richest). 10% is a reasonable cut-off. Johntex 20:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I may be misunderstanding lotsofissues', er, issues, but I think he means that a school that admits the top 10% of its public high schools' graduating classes can't be "one of the best." (Too bad those pesky rankings disagree. As do I.) · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:45, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Your attitude--how common it is--reflects why almost all our school articles are marketing brochures rather than real information. lots of issues | leave me a message 14:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

My attitude and I thank you for your constructive comments. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

who effin cares, come on, ALL state schools are subject to that, it's like saying that any state or government sanctioned office/activity/organization sucks because it can't get millions of dollars from a handful of rich people. so basically, everything democratic is screwed by that reasoning. GET OFF IT, JEEZ.

left-out famous alumns

farrah fawcett and cartoonist/graphic novelist chris ware were both ut art majors. i don't have any links to "proof" but i know chris ware talks about it in one of his books, and it talks about his involvement with the daily texan on his wiki page.

Athletics Article

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)

1. Texas Longhorns (which currently redirects to this article)
2. Athletics at the Univeristy of Texas at Austin
3. or something else?

I think a fork sounds like a fine idea. How about Texas Longhorn Athletics? · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• OK, thanks for the feedback. I am going to go with Texas Longhorn Athletics, we can always do a page move if we have to. Johntex\^talk 21:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Texas Longhorn Athletics has now been created - starting from the content in the Athletics section here. Once we improve it a bit into its own article, then we can put a "see-main" tag here and shorten the athletic section of this article. Johntex\^talk 01:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, and all the other likely permutations are now redirects to Texas Longhorn Athletics. Johntex\^talk 01:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

100th meeting of Red River Shootout

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)

Origin of UT

"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)

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)

Vote on UTex Athletic Logo

Please vote for a new athletics logo at: Talk:Texas_Longhorn_Athletics The polls are open for two weeks from: 22 October 2005

John R. Hedrick ?

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)

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)

Does anyone learn at UT?

I attend the University of Texas, and a friend of mine pointed out that there is almost no mention of the academic aspects of the University on this page. Earlier this year there was an edit controversy eliminating a lot of the rankings information. I am concerned that the page seems to dwell on all non-academic concerns in fear of touching that hot topic again. The University has great academic programs, and this article should make note of at least the fact that they exist. Nowhere on this page is it mentioned what colleges the University has or degrees the University offers. Just wondering what we should do about this. Thanks! -Scm83x 08:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe put something like an organisational structure section in, here is an example of what I mean.--Commander Keane 08:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be much improvement to this article in regards to the University's academic side.

• Regarding the organizational structure: If you'll look to [[10]], there's a complete listing of all of UT's academic departments. I'm not a huge fan of the example Commander Keane provided, though I like the concept; I fear that a bulleted list may end up looking like the 'Academics' section of the University of Maryland, College Park article, for example - long, ugly, and containing too much detail. Rather, the University of Michigan article has an informative handful of paragraphs on academics and research, while the University of Virginia article has a section on academics and a very concise list of the, I suppose, 'umbrella' colleges. These three examples are all from the Public Ivy article, just to use in comparison with UT. One more thing: there is mention of the ranking of various colleges on these pages, based on US News and World Report, for example. I wasn't here for the original discussion regarding Academic Boosterism, but I feel that its possible to simply leave them out for now, so we can at least get some mention of academics up, such as a basic outline of the various colleges and schools, degrees offered, structure and distribution of colleges/students/faculty, and other notable details.
• On another note, I'm not sure I like the 'Impact on expansion of information technology and film industries in Austin' section in the University of Texas article. It seems to mention RTF (Radio-Television-Film in the College of Communication) quite a bit; why should the RTF department get all of the exposure? In fact, I think the entire section itself seems to ramble and go off-topic, discussing the development of Austin and its people rather than the University itself. This information, while accurate, belongs in the alumni branch page, for example. I fail to see how the school's impact on Austin film deserves its own section with 'campus,' 'history,' 'athletics,' and 'notable alumni.' --Rebelguys2 01:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It possibly doesn't need its own section, but I think the information should be retained. It's pretty clear that Austin's burgeoning film industry owes much to UT's RTF program. · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't sure, and I'll agree that its good information. But, I'd like to think that its own section is unnecessary; otherwise, shouldn't we be crediting the College of Engineering for playing a role in the growth of local high-tech industry, the School of Law and it pumping out so much of the legal and political foundation around here, and so on? It seems to concentrate more on the achievements of alumni (high tech and film) and Austin's specialties rather than those of the RTF school and the univeristy itself. -Rebelguys2 02:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the difference here is that it's very unique. Not every city has a film industry; that can't really be said for the rest of the disciplines you mentioned (except maybe politics -- for that matter, we should probably expand the LBJ grad school a bit). · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Article Rehaul

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks, I'll head over to the temp article and check it out. -Rebelguys2 19:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I just redid the History section a bit; the new information I got I couldn't help but slip in, so I branched to History of the University of Texas at Austin. That branch isn't really a decent article, and I'll get to it later. For now, though, I'm going to ask some people to read through it, and then set it up for its first round of peer review. -Rebelguys2 08:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Main Building

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)

No recent pictures?

I guess I'm gonna have to upload some of my own even though they're not that good. - Eagle^amn 09:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Reviving the Austin Wikimeetup

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)

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)

UT-Austin Userbox

As part of the WikiProject Userboxes I created a standardized Userbox for UT-Austin students and alumni. Feel free to use on your userpages. 1001001 08:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Add to your userpage:

This userbox already exists at {{user longhorn}}. -Scm83x 09:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hook 'em Horns! This user attends or attended The University of Texas.

Didn't see the {{User longhorn}} out there. Let's keep using that one! (I like the color scheme MUCH better, too!) 1001001 10:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Victory Over USC January 2005

Marked 4th National title and first in 35years.

Vincent Young Broke Rose Bowl Records with extra ordinary yards in both passing and rushing.

(aTm has had one national title)

(OU got beat by UT's score backwords last year against USC and were basically slaughtered)

(i also suggest getting rid of all of the spam above as it's pointless and please someone with the time do some research and fine the facts and maybe make a compare and contrast chart

Tower picture request

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)

Article much improved

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)

Thanks and double Thanks! Johntex\^talk 23:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

T +1

An anonymous editor has added a statement that fans of both UT and a&m refer to the annual football game as "T +1". It is certainly cute, but I've never heard it. I did a Google search ("T +1" Texas Football) and got no relevant hits. Therefore, I think this is a neologism at best. If anyone is confident this is in fact a prevelant expression, please clue me in. Johntex\^talk 23:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Never heard of it, not that that means anything. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who spends any amount of time on a Texas (hornfans.com) or Texas A&M (texags.com) message board will see the date of the Texas - Texas A&M game referred to as T+1 in the majority of posts. As for googling for T+1, the + sign is a special operator in the context of a google search. Consequently it is ignored as a text element. I defer to those who maintain this page if it is believed this is unneeded information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Es330td (talk • contribs)

Hey, thanks for the explainer. Very helpful. Personally, I don't think an online message board meme warrants inclusion. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If it was only used online I would not have mentioned it, but I've heard this reference in verbal conversation even from alumni of other schools.Es330td 22:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Tunnels addition by 204.65.209.254

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)

• Certainly the tunnels are the sources of rumors, but I don't think that rises to the level of being included in an encyclopedia unless it is sourced. The Daily Texas has run numerous articles on the tunnel system. It should not be hard to find one. As for the "common evacuations of the Welch science hall" - I think that should also be removed unless we can identify some of these "many theorists". Johntex\^talk 16:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• It certainly sounds like a conspiracy theory, though it is true that the tunnels exist and are at least partially guarded by silent alarms. Here's one article from the Daily Texan: [11], and two more about a few students trespassing in the tunnels: [12], [13]. - EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 16:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I agree, the tunnel discussion should go. David 18:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

• In this Board of Regents Meeting - 1980 - they authorize extending the tunnels across Red River Street - p54