Jump to content

Talk:University of Texas at Austin/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Princeton Review rankings

As my edit comment indicated, I see no reason this information should not be included in the article. If there is a legitimate reason for not including it, please post it here. --Ntmg05 19:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirect University of Texas to University of Texas System

To most people University of Texas refers to the UT system, University of Texas should move to University of Texas System. RockiRock 16:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no way of knowing what "most people" think. However, in my frame of reference, 'most people' think of UT Austin when they say University of Texas. As such, I disagree with the proposed change. SteveHopson 16:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I also disagree, as most people in media especially college football, refer to the University as "The University of Texas". When someone is not from Texas, the University of Texas that they mean is UT Austin, hands down. — Scm83x hook 'em 16:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There are people who think Universtiy of Texas as the UT system. Austin is listed in the UT system article. So what's wrong with redirecting University of Texas to University of Texas System? RockiRock 17:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with it. But that's not the test that we are striving for. The better question is what is most clear to most readers. Our personal points of view do not enter into the question here. Just because one editor thinks UT means UT System is not relevant because other editors think different things. In the absence of any outside information -- polls, surveys, other examples -- the redirect should stay as is. Scm83x brings up just this kind of outside information that should guide our discussion. Another example is Texas A&M University. Like UT, TAMU is both a system and a University, yet entering that term into Wiki brings you to the University article, not the System. SteveHopson 18:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think TAMU system is comparable with UT system. There are several large doctorate institutions in the University of Texas System. They are all called Universtiy of Texas in their official names. University of California, University of Illinois, State University of New York are all directed to the System page. RockiRock 20:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt in my mind that "University of Texas" is synonymous in most peoples minds with UT Austin. Outside of the state of Texas, significant nubmers of people are not aware any other campus even exists. I would have to see very strong documentation to the contrary before I would support any change to the redirect. Johntex\talk 01:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
"University of Texas" has always referred to the Austin campus and that campus alone. All other derivatives, regardless of association of organizational hierarchy, are referred to as UT-Dallas, UT-Arlington, UT System, etc. The end. --Ntmg05 02:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, a bit more. I think UC actually should redirect to UC-Berkeley and UI to UI-Urbana-Champaign, not the system pages. The common assocation for "University of California" is the Berkeley campus, while the common association for "University of Illinois" is the Urbana-Champaign campus. There are very few people who would say "University of California" and mean UCLA or "University of Illinois" and mean UIC. Finally, there is no common association for the abbreviation "SUNY" with any particular campus; common usage is always "SUNY" followed by the campus location, or the variant "University at Albany" (for example). --Ntmg05 02:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The difference in California is that there is no "University of California System." Legally, rather than a "system" it is a single university with multiple campuses. I think it would be appropriate to redirect University of Texas to this page. --Grouse 12:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Whether it has "system" in the name or not is irrelevant. It's still a university system. Furthermore, I still maintain that common usage of "University of California" refers specifically to the Berkeley campus. --Ntmg05 00:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
It is relevant because there is no other name for the "system" other than University of California. Not the case here.

--Grouse 07:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

True, but the point is that the most common association of "University of California" is to the Berkeley campus, not the system office, despite the identical name. There are countless examples on this web site where the most common association of a term receives preferential keyword redirection. Example: Jericho. I wouldn't automatically oppose a redirect of "University of California" or "University of Texas" to a disambiguation page, but I definitely oppose directing it to the system office. That's simply not consistent with common usage of the term, and thus Wikipedia policy. --Ntmg05 19:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I would also add that Texas A&M is entirely similar to UT, in fact they have identical governance structures. I think the TAMU alums would be quick to point out that the system also has several large doctoral institutions, like UT. SteveHopson 03:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. And just like with UT, nobody would say "Texas A&M" and mean A&M-Commerce or the A&M System. --Ntmg05 03:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
as an encyclopaedic source, we should not consider what would transmit the most accurate information, and not what "most people" refer to. It doesn't follow logically to redirect the class to the member, on the basis that most people use the class moniker to refer to both the class and the member; but unfortunately, that is what we are proposing and maintaining. We really need to consider encyclopaedic referential integrity OVER what "significant numbers of people are not aware" of, otherwise, wikipedia looses validity as a source. It doesn't follow that because the majority of people refer to it as one thing, that an ENCYCLOPAEDIC source will also do the same, when it, in reality and officially refers to the other. Wikipedia is supposed to be a verifiable source; redirecting "University of Texas" to "University of Texas at Austin" on the basis that "most people" associate the moniker "University of Texas" with the UT-Austin campus is not verifiable by any means we now possess, without it becoming original research. Locriani 05:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Our policies clearly state that the most commonly used name is often to be preferred, even over more rigorously correct names. Hence United States of America redirects to United States. Think about what serves the reader the best. If 99% of people who type in "University of Texas" are looking for this campus, then that is where our redirect should take them. There is no point in forcing the majority of readers to make an extra click for no good reason. Johntex\talk 05:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Encyclopedic integrity would only be jeopardized if the UT System article was missing or there was no clear link between the two. It's not unreasonable for a site to determine how keyword searches are directed, especially when alternatives are clearly presented. Furthermore, it's not original research to do so since the information contained articles themselves isn't being altered in any way. --Ntmg05 00:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Directing United States of America to United States is because the first one is politically unpleasant. If people want to find other UT campus, they probably will only type University of Texas. And the present arrangement takes them two clicks for no good reasons. University of Texas is a system to most people. No doubt about it. RockiRock 17:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I challenge you to present any evidence to back up your position. Here is some evidence to back up mine. Google hits can be a good indicator of how people are using a given term. If you type in "University of Texas" in Google, the top hits are to:
  1. UT Austin[1]
  2. The UT system[2]
  3. UT Austin[3]
  4. UT Austin[4]
  5. UT Dallas[5]
  6. UT Austin[6]
  7. UT Arlington[7]
  8. UT Health Science Center - Houston[8]
  9. UT San Antonio[9]
  10. UT Austin[10]
  11. UT Austin[11]
  12. UT Austin[12]
  13. UT Austin[13]
  14. UT Austin[14]
  15. UT System[15]
  16. UT El Paso[16]
  17. UT Austin[17]
  18. University of North Texas[18]
  19. University of Texas Medical Branch - Galveston[19]
  20. UT Austin[20]
The count is: UT Austin - 11, UT System - 2, UT Dallas - 1, UT Arlington - 1, UTHSC-SA - 1, UTSA - 1, UTEP - 1, UNT - 1, UTHSC-G - 1. Not only is UT Austin the most frequently returned reference by a wide margin, it has a complete majority even if you combine all the other hits into one category of "anything other than UT Austin".
I also did a Google search on "what does University of Texas mean". The top hit (Princeton)[21] defines the term to mean UT Austin first, and the UT System as a second definition. Johntex\talk 18:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

how about this: google searches
Results 1 - 100 of about 48,800,000 for university of texas system
Results 1 - 100 of about 40,500,000 for university of texas at austin
more literature exists on the web about the system, rather than the campus. Locriani 10:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It's hard for me to see than either of these Google searches (John's or Locriani's) really proves anything. Although since Locriani forgot to use quotes when doing them, they're even more useless. --Grouse 11:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
also, encarta 2004 directs the search term University of Texas to the University of Texas System article, while the columbia encyclopedia article for "Texas, University of" refers to the university system, as does brittanica, and world book, and nearly 90% of every encyclopedia i have checked, with the exception of ours.Locriani 11:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
aside - i am having difficulty locating the policy page that you cited earlier. Would you be able to point me in the right direction?

Our policies clearly state that the most commonly used name is often to be preferred, even over more rigorously correct names.

Thanks.Locriani 11:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
The easiest way to figure out how popular two terms are in comparison is to do a Google trends search. If you compare "University of Texas at Austin" with "University of Texas System" then there's no doubt at all, UT is the campus, not the system, as per Wikipedia policy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.169.41 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 2007 January 29

Most people don't put their stuff on the internet. The result of internet search doesn't mean anything. Also, I don't know how the search account is numbered here. I tried to search University of Texas in google. There are numerous things come out. How can someone account this? Besides I find that almost all UT universities come out as the search result. RockiRock 15:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

What does it matter that most people don't put their stuff on the Internet? It's not like the Permian Basin kids are savages, the Dallas kids live in straw huts, and only the Austin kids post their stuff online. It's not like major news, sports, and cultural outlets put their stuff online — oh wait, they do, and they refer to the Austin campus using UT and Texas. Johntex's Google search is certainly a good argument, as we're looking for general usage of the term "University of Texas." It was Locriani's search that was completely meaningless.
Wikipedia clearly states at Wikipedia:Naming conventions that, "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature."
It continues, "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." If someone says Texas A&M, they think College Station. If someone says University of Texas, they think Austin.
I'm sure that the Texas A&M-Commerce and UT-Arlington kids, for example, may be a little bitter about it. But they certainty don't reflect the general audience. — Rebelguys2 talk 15:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I found this sentence at Wikipedia:Naming conventions: "a term that may be used to describe several different search terms may require a disambiguation page." RockiRock 16:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep. But "University of Texas" is never used to describe other universities. "University of Texas" usually describes UT-Austin, and occasionally the System, so that explains the italics at the top of the page. — Rebelguys2 talk 16:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I simply disagree. University of Maryland, University of North Carolina, University of Massachusetts, University of Hawaiʻi all direct to their university system. RockiRock 16:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, and that is a mistake. Hopefully an administrator will correct that soon. --Ntmg05 16:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Yep. But when referring to specific universities, when do you see University of Maryland without College Park after it? Never. When do you see UNC without Chapel Hill after it? Never. When do you see Massachusetts without Amherst after it? Never. When do you see SUNY without Buffalo or Albany after it? Never. When do you see UC without Berkely after it? Not very frequently at all.
I see the exact opposite all the time, with the exception of SUNY, which I have already explained in a previous note. --Ntmg05 16:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
OK...then it would be better the 'flagship' universities away from their more specific names in those cases too? — Rebelguys2 talk 16:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, wait, Ntmg's right. I probably shouldn't edit, argue, and do page moves on Wikipedia while simultaneously doing stuff in real life at the same time. — Rebelguys2 talk 16:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Now, when do you see Texas A&M without College Station after it? Almost always. When do you see University of Texas without Austin after it? Very frequently. — Rebelguys2 talk 16:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

So wait, there were other counterexamples on Wikipedia, but looking at your contributions, you started making page moves before we had settled on this issue and didn't bother to concede those points. How devious of you. — Rebelguys2 talk 16:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

People in Texas must speak another language. RockiRock 16:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we're a bunch of savages. I have to ride my horse down to the saloon now. — Rebelguys2 talk 17:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
It should also be noted that the main reason for common usage of "University of Texas" referring to the Austin campus only is that the Austin campus existed as "University of Texas" before the system concept was ever created. --Ntmg05 19:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
First off, thanks for the links to the policy pages. I am, however,not exactly understanding how my search was "meaningless," could you please elaborate on your reasoning? it seemed quite clear to me that it indicated a broader base of literature for the term "University of Texas System" vs. "University of Texas at Austin." Or, more simply put, there is nearly 8,300,000 more pages of literature on the web for the UT System than there is about UT-Austin as a campus. Thus, the implication that fewer people either know about the UT Sytem is at least questionable. The allegation that "most people don't put their stuff on the internet" is unfair, go look up demographics of internet posting and usage. You will find that the users are overwhelmingly either teens or college age students. I have lived in the DFW area for the past 15 years, I have only rarely heard anyone in conversation refer to UT-Austin as simply the "University of Texas" vs "University of Texas at Austin." If someone does simply say that, most people (here) will ask you "Which one?" At the very least, it seems that a disambiguation page is warranted here, because even if UT Longhorns were known as simply "University of Texas" originally, the usage has changed and expanded enough to cover several different items. Why are we accepting the Princeton Review definition of the University of Texas term? That literature is geared more towards people looking for colleges, and in my admittedly brief search of princeton review materials, they don't mention the UT System at all, because the material really doesn't concern their audience. I enjoy how you think that all texans are backwater... seems to be a common misconception in a lot of areas. And no, I did not ride horses to school.
The only thing your search proved was that there are more documents online with the individual words "university," "of," "texas," and "system," not the phrase "university of texas system." Also, the Princeton link is a link to Princeton University's WordNet, not Princeton Review. --Ntmg05 23:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Locriani 06:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I didn't use quotes, new to wikipedia I am. And Grouse, read the flagship article, had to clear my cache a few times before it would work though. Sorry for the mishap there. Ntmg05, are you employing sarcasm in your previous post mentioning UNC-Chapel Hill and UC-Berkley? Can't tell - there doesn't seem to be a sarcasm markup character available.Locriani 21:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm entirely serious. If someone walked up to me and said, "I attended the University of North Carolina," I would automatically assume they meant the Chapel Hill campus. Furthermore, if you really have lived in D/FW for 15 years just as I have, you should be familiar with the serious faux pas one commits if they were to say "I attended the University of Texas" but actually meant UT-Dallas or something. There is nothing ambiguous about the term; it always refers to the Austin campus, and Longhorns will jump all over you if you're not clear that you attended UT-Dallas. If nothing else, think about athletics. Name one place where the University of California Golden Bears are referred to as the University of Califorina-Berkeley Golden Bears. --Ntmg05 23:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC) I stand corrected, there are a few that refer to them like that. --Ntmg05
That's the point I am trying to get across... that there is a significant minority who refer to UT meaning the system. If we can't agree a redirect to UTSystem page, can we all agree on a disambiguation page, perhaps? Locriani 06:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm conceding the point to UC-Berkeley, not to UT. I don't believe there is a significant minority that believes what you do because I have lived in Texas my entire life and never encountered this idea until now. Again, "University of Texas" does not refer to the system as a whole. The system is always called "University of Texas System" or UT System. The Austin campus is always "University of Texas," UT, or UT-Austin. The El Paso campus is "University of Texas at El Paso," UTEP, or UT-El Paso, and so on. --Ntmg05 17:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I think Ntmg05 has the soul of it right here—people just don't refer to the UT System as "The University of Texas" while they do refer to UT Austin that way. --Grouse 10:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd be against changing to a dismbiguation page. The current set-up, where the redirect comes here and the UT system is prominently linked at the top of the articles, will best serve the majority of readers. That is what we are aiming for. Johntex\talk 17:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Wait — are you serious that people in Texas don't ride horses to school? — Rebelguys2 talk 22:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Completely. 100%. I don't even own a horse. No one in my extended family owns more than 1 acre of land. Or a horse, for that matter. Same with all 200+ people at my church. My high school had an enrollment of over 3000, but only 3 people were on the rodeo team. I've been to a rodeo once in my life, and that was because my visiting grandparents wanted to see it. I can't do the texas two step. I don't own a truck. etc, etc. I've ridden a horse before, yes, but that was in oklahoma. This has gotten way off topic. Locriani 22:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Hilarious.
Except for the fact that I was joking, as I've lived between Dallas and Austin all my life. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Haha, that's the danger with wikipedia. Impossible to tell expressions, and moods. I'm laughing fit to boot right now. Locriani 06:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out one more time that the current arrangement is very inconvenient for readers looking for other UT Universities rather than Austin. It takes them 3 clicks. And there are 15 institutions in UT system. The sheer inconveniece caused by the current arrangment to non-Austin readers outweights the convenience to Austin readers. Based on this fact, I'll insist on redirecting "University of Texas" to "Universtiy of Texas system", which is more reader-friendly and reflects the current reality. RockiRock 15:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

And for the record, once again I disagree. Someone searching for UT El Paso is going to enter that phrase into the search, not UT. And, once again, this is the proper forum for discussing these questions before taking unilateral action and making the change on your own. SteveHopson 15:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagree. People nowadays try to type as little as possible. Besides there are Dallas, San Antonio, Arlington compuses and other UT health institutions that are as famous as Austin. RockiRock 15:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Do you seriously think that UT-D: with an enrollment of <15,000, founded in 1961, with no Division IA sports teams, is as famous as UT: ~50,000 current students, one of the largest living alumni bases, mentioned in the Constitution of the Republic of Texas, founded in 1883, site of the first truly random mass-murder in history, known for world class Division I athletics, including national championships in Football and Baseball within just the last 2 years? Johntex\talk 16:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
As an Aggie, I am required to point out that we were founded before UT, and we're pretty cool, too. That is all. Carry on. haha. --Ntmg05 18:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely! I think we all agree that atm is the second coolest university in Texas, and that's still plenty cool! :-) Johntex\talk 18:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

For god's sake, I'm sick to the stomach. Other UT campus may not be as famous as UT Austin individually. But together, they are at least as famous as UT Austin. RockiRock 15:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I would not agree with that. I currently live in the UK and almost no one here realizes that there is a University of Texas other than the one in Austin. Maybe this will change with time. But in a way, mere fame is beside the point. Harvard University has a worldwide fame that far surpasses UT Austin but few are likely to refer to Harvard when they say "The University of Texas." The question is not about who is more famous, but instead about what entity people are likely to refer to as when they say "University of Texas." I imagine relatively few people worldwide or even America know of the system's very existence. Grouse 23:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The University of Texas refers to UT-Austin unless stated otherwise. See, for example, the Article 7, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution and the last paragraph of the Commission of 125's operational recommendations. - ChrisKennedy(talk) 08:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The easiest way to figure out how popular two terms are in comparison is to do a Google trends search. If you compare "University of Texas at Austin" with "University of Texas System" then there's no doubt at all, UT is the campus, not the system, as per Wikipedia policy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.169.41 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 2007 January 29

I just reverted the addition of an external link which was added without comment as the first external link. If the new link will add anything to the article, please explain what it adds. If it does provide some useful content, it still probably should not be the first link. Johntex\talk 21:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Tower Sniper

Why doesn't the Wiki discuss the events of August 1st 1966? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.162.1.32 (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

It does, and links to an extensive article at Charles Whitman as well. Grouse 18:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


Moving article to The University of Texas

Given the above comments signed as "ChrisKennedy(talk) 08:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)" and the language on The University of Texas's own website, I suggest that article University of Texas at Austin be moved to The University of Texas (of course with a redirect). -- Jeff G. 17:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

What language on UT's web site? I disagree with moving the article, I think it is best as is. Grouse 17:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I meant "The University" (emphasis added) in both the top banner and the legalese. -- Jeff G. 18:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I also disagree with moving the article. It is best as it is. Most people looking for "University of Texas" will be looking for "University of Texas at Austin". No other schools in the UT system call themselves "University of Texas" without a qualifying description. Johntex\talk 17:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood what you meant. I thought this was a continuation of the above discusion about whether University of Texas should redirect here or to the UT system.
With regards to the article "The" preceeding the name, I would be OK with changing it, but only if the naming convention is changed first. The discussion on that is at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name)#Universities. The discussion there is currently inactive. If you want to revive the discussion, I suggest you do so at that page and post a link here so that people can chime in. Johntex\talk 19:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
If you do revive the discussion, you should probably post also on the talk pages of the other affected universities. There is a list at the link I provided above. Johntex\talk 19:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, maybe when I get back... -- Jeff G. 01:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I find this proposal ridiculous. University of Texas is the official name of the UT system, not UT-Austin. Actually University of Texas System should be moved to University of Texas instead. 67.82.96.140 02:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That has been discussed before and rejected. Personally, I think it is a horrible idea. Most people looking up UT will be looking up this campus. Johntex\talk 06:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
This is probably a redundant posting. It is not totally ridiculous. Jeff G. does have a point but Wikipedia seems to have decided about universities that use "The" on their identities/trademarks. I'm against the propose move, by the way. The reason why it is not totally "ridiculous" because on the school's "Writer's Style Guide": Our national and international identity hinges on the words “The University of Texas at Austin.” Do not use the acronym “UT” or the abbreviated name “UT Austin” when communicating to mixed or outside audiences.[23] --J. Nguyen 17:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as the University of Texas though. Keep it right, the university of texas at austin is it's name, if people don't know what they're looking for, that's their problem. They should know better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ElpasoHead (talk • contribs).

Party school

I think that this article needs a reference to UT austin's new title: number one party school in America. 70.196.2.42 20:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Summary of recent changes

All,

I made some changes today. I didnt erase any text from the article. Most of what I did was cosmetics, intended to uplift the article's image. When compared to articles like MIT, I think the article needed (and still needs) a facelift. So here's what I did:

  • Added some images. There was (is) a lack of campus images. Fortunately, I found the LBJ and Hobby-Ebberly pic. I'll shoot some more pics myself soon.
  • Replaced the Memorial Stadium pic with the wide angle pic of the Stadium. Similar to what the MIT article does for their campus pic.
  • Moved pics up and down to match pics with text topic.
  • Deleted pics like the bus pic, and replaced with pics like the Barbieri painting to upgrade the school's image. (having a bus isnt something that noteworthy).
  • Added gallery of famous people. I wasnt sure about John Wheeler or Walter Cronkite. I decided for Wheeler.
  • Standardized size of images, for perusal flow of text.
  • Fixed and added some captions and links that are hard to find in the article.

I hope the changes are pleasing and acceptable to most if not all folks here.

Finally, I think the article still needs work. The way the article is written, it seems to give an impression that UT Austin is just big on partying and football games, while academic prestige and educational excellence have taken a back seat. And that isnt a fair depiction I'd say. Compare to MIT's article to see what I mean.

Be cool.--Zereshk 22:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


I think the pictures are way, way better than they used to be. However, I think that more pictures should be included of the prettier spots of UT. The picture of the telescope is pretty dull. Aren't there more attractive shots? I also think the portrait isn't the best idea. It's just a portrait not really connected and doesn't really communicate much about the school as a place, which is what I think all of the pictures should be doing. A picture relating to the museum should be a picture of the outside or interior of the museum, preferable one that is interesting or aesthetically pleasing. A picture of one or two of the more attractive libraries would be a good idea, too. UT looks awfully sterile just looking at the pictures on this page.

So maybe I'll go take a few pictures. But, again, it is much, much better. 71.42.138.42 01:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Aggie Bonfire

Not sure of other Aggies has posted this up, but bonfire is no longer done, at least officially, at A&M. Bonfire should be in past tense. Oldag07 19:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

either that, or i think it should be more noticable that the university is not associated with bonfire.Oldag07 19:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  • OK, I changed it to "Both schools traditionally hold a rally each year before the football game — Texas hosts the Hex Rally, and students at Texas A&M host the Aggie Bonfire (although it is no longer an officially sanctioned Texas A&M event)." How does that sound? Johntex\talk 18:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
goodOldag07 19:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Univ of Texas redirect

I find it appalling that UT-Austin students keep redirecting UT to UT-Austin. UT needs to redirect to the UT system, just as how University of California, University of North Carolina, and University of Illinois all redirect to the system and not to the premier university in the system. UT students of other campuses really need to combat this more instead of having UT-Austin steamroll them. UT-Austin is inferior in relations to the premier universities of the systems mentioned above, so maybe that’s why you guys have such an urge to stomp on anybody who is smaller.

Just to put it in perspective, US news put you at the same rank as UC Santa Barbara, and Shanghai Jiao Tong University’s rankings put you below UC Santa Barbara. We generally don’t consider UT-Austin prestigious, so cool your heads and learn be respectful to the other UT’s. Unsuspected 06:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

When most people go looking for UT, they are looking for UT-Austin. That is why the redirect should come here. This has been discussed before. It has nothing to do with stomping on anyone. Throwing insults and allegations is not the way to try to change consensus. Johntex\talk 18:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
What you guys are doing is completely unprecedented and really only amounts to an insult to your fellow Texans. When someone says University of Texas, they usually think about the entire University of Texas entity; it makes no sense to point it directly to the Austin campus.
I know you guys might refer to it as University of Texas among the local community, where the “Austin” part is quickly implied since you live there. However, especially for people outside of Texas, there is no such implication.
I looked over the Austin discussion page, and I have determined that the arguments for pointing University of Texas to the system are far stronger. I also noticed how you guys argued about being the most prestigious university in Texas, despite the fact that the very prestigious Rice University also resides in Texas.
You would need a really strong argument to prove to everybody that the University of Texas is different from the University of California, University of South Carolina, University of Illinois, University of Hawaii, and more who all point to the system as oppose to a particular school. Currently, it appears that the only thing driving your action is your ego.Unsuspected 20:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Please stop insulting people and making unfounded accusations about people's egos, where they live, what motivates them, etc. If you are not more civil you may be blocked. I have restored the earlier version of the redirect and protected it. If you want to try to change consensus here, where this matter was debated and decided before, please discuss instead of throwing accusations. Johntex\talk 23:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I am shocked that being an UT-Austin student or alumni, that you didn’t rescind yourself from this issue. In the US courts, a judge always rescinds from a case if he has even a minute bias, and your bias is far from minute.
Since I am from California, my interest in this is only based on what I think is the fair and right thing to do. I was wondering why every single university system except for University of Texas is different in terms of redirect. Now I see it is clearly because of you.
I have looked at the discussion prior, and to me it clearly looks like there were better arguments for having the redirect point to the system. IMHO, the key argument is the fact that every other university system in the United States does it that way; why should University of Texas be different?
I don’t know why you say “this matter was debated and decided,” when there clearly weren’t any good arguments to have UT point to the UT-Austin as oppose to the system. I don’t think anybody w/o a bias would read that and conclude that such a consensus was reached.
Furthermore, I believe my argument that people who live in Austin are more likely to refer to UT-Austin as University of Texas was a good one. I don’t know why you interrupted that as an insult. It was a response to your argument, “When most people go looking for UT, they are looking for UT-Austin.” Clearly, I disagree with you on this point. People mentioned it in the previous statements, but in every chart and publication outside of Texas, UT-Austin is always referred to as UT-Austin and not the University of Texas.
So, in summary, my main points:
  • Why is University of Texas different from every other University systems (University of California, University of Illinois, etc)?
  • Since UT-Austin is an entity of University of Texas, why shouldn’t University of Texas redirect to the main entity (the system).
  • Since UT-Austin is part of UT, there are clear links in the UT page for the Austin campus; I don’t see any problem with people following those links in case they were looking for Austin.
  • While people in Texas, and particularly in Austin, might refer to UT-Austin as simply UT, that is just not the case for people outside of Texas.
  • And furthermore, while I do not mind you taking part in the debate, it is obviously unethical for you to use your mod privileges for this article. It is like being the defendant and the judge at the same time. I’m surprised Wikipedia does not have a policy against that.
Unsuspected 03:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The fact that certain other universities have a given redirect policy does not imply that it must be forced onto this particular university. UT-Austin has a long history of being referred to as The University of Texas, and the UT System is only rarely referred to as "UT" or "The University of Texas." Your research method is flawed - try to do some historical research on UT-Austin specifically rather than citing other institutions. I've taken only a brief glance through my files and JSTOR, but see, for example:
  • American Government and Politics: The Poll Tax: The Case of Texas. Donald S. Strong. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 38, No. 4. (Aug., 1944), pp. 693-709.
  • Impeachment of Governor Ferguson. Frederic A. Ogg. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 12, No. 1. (Feb., 1918), pp. 111-115.
  • A List of the Types of Fossil Vertebrates in the Museum of the University of Texas. Thos. H. Montgomery, Jr. Biological Bulletin > Vol. 8, No. 1 (Dec., 1904), pp. 56-58.
  • Hopwood Is Dead: But Black Enrollments at the University of Texas Are Likely to Decline. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education > No. 40 (Summer, 2003), pp. 14-15.
  • You can look at http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_texas/ as well and quickly see the pattern.
  • Go to http://www.utexas.edu - what website is that? Now try http://www.utaustin.edu and see what you find. - ChrisKennedy(talk) 06:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Some examples of this practice for other flagship universities:
Clearly your argument that UT-Austin's redirect is different "from every other University systems" is without merit. - ChrisKennedy(talk) 07:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I'll chime in here as an impartial observer of this debate. First off, I would be shocked to hear someone outside of Texas refer to UT-Austin in that manner. Second, you list two university systems that redirect people to the system page...2 out of I don't even know how many. One of them (California) doesn't even have a real flagship campus - every school within the system is big and highly-regarded. So that leaves the University of Illinois - one example doesn't set a precedent when there are dozens more taking the opposite approach. I just wanted to see if we could clear up those two points, because they just don't seem valid to me and they are the bulk of your argument. -Texink 05:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Google "UT" and see what you get. Do you have the same issue with the University of Tennessee? I don't see any comments on its talk page.BlueAg09 (Talk) 09:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I have never lived in Texas and when I say "University of Texas," I am referring to UT-Austin. It is an appropriate redirect. It's not about politics; it is about being taken to the best match (i.e. the one you are most likely seeking) to your search. --Wordbuilder 13:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have never been to Texas. But University of Texas refers to the system to me. Most large major public university system in wikipedia actually have such kind of page redirect to their system article. For example,

Miaers 00:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"University of Texas" redirects here. For other system schools, see University of Texas System. This message is on top of the page. So if a reader were to look for the system, they can click this wikilink on top.BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with BlueAg09 and others here who say that the redirect should point to this page. Most people looking for "University of Texas" will be looking for this specific campus. For those few who are looking for the system, we have a prominent link at the very top of the article to redirect them to the system. Johntex\talk 23:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree w/BlueAg09 and Johntex about the redirect because of my intuitive sense that most people mean UT Austin when they talk about the University of Texas. But is there an objective way to demonstrate this? I ask not just because of UT, but because of the long-running dispute at University of Wisconsin, which both I and Miaers are involved in. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Consider taking a look at what links to the redirect page University of Texas. Visit those articles and see if the editors were intending to link to UT, Austin or to the UT System. --Wordbuilder 13:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem with that method is that it can be gamed; if I were a motivated edit warrior, I could visit those articles and change the links to avoid the redirect. I'm looking for non-Wikipedia evidence. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the content of Wikipedia be impartial and not attempt to guess at which information the searching user is probably looking for? The aforementioned campus in central Texas is The University of Texas at Austin, official name for some time now. Seems the most logical link between article and title ("The University of Texas") is the system, which will certainly allow info seekers to find which campus they are looking for. Austin may be the historic and financial basis for the system and the largest single component, but the size and enrollment of all the other sister institutions is significant. I think the best solution is for "The University of Texas" to link to the system page with a redirect notice (as mentioned before, though in the other direction) indicating UT Austin, the most prominent school within the system. 198.211.205.112 22:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The consensus on this page is soundly against your proposal. I note that you haven't provided any evidence for your position except your feeling that it's the most logical. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The whole purpose of my contribution was to weigh in against the consensus on the grounds I stated. And *I* note that you haven't provided any evidence for your position as well, except joining the 'sound' consensus and offering your 'intuitive sense'. I'm not sure what kind of evidence can be offered either way, short of a sociological study to ascertain which people refer to when speaking of "The University of Texas". In the absence of objective data, logic would seem to suggest... a logical solution? 198.211.205.112 17:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I and most of the other people who have commented on this issue think the current setup is most logical, and most helpful for the Wikipedia reader. If you've got evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it, but in its absence we'll go with the intuitive sense of most of the editors here. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
And I disagree with that. As I mentioned earlier, objective evidence likely doesn't exist to invalidate the consensus opinion that "people mean UT Austin". I am simply offering a dissenting opinion that I feel is more accurate and logical. If you want to brow beat me about there being a consensus, fine, as my intention was to suggest an alternative that may become the consensus in the future. I look forward to contributions from others. 198.211.205.112 18:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

section break

I have to agree w/198.211.205.112. I think the issue is that most people who care to post in this discussion thread actually go to UT-Austin, so there is a bias. That's why this shouldn't be a poll, but instead a glace at what is better for the Wiki community and the most fair. It seems UT-Austin is doing itself a disfavor by saying that the other university in the UT system are so minor that the UT redirect should go straight to UT-Austin. While people inside texas might automatically assume UT means UT-Austin, people outside of texas seldom have the same mindset. It seems unfair to not share the spot light w/ the other campuses. The top universities like UC Berkeley aren't arguing to have UC point directly to them. 132.239.90.47 21:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree, and most of the editors who have commented, including editors who have made many contributions to this and other UT articles, think that University of Texas should redirect here. Until consensus changes, let's not change the redirect. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree either. I live outside of California and I travel extensively both across the US and internationally. When I tell people I grew up in Texas and went to UT, people automatically assume I mean UT-Austin. They usually say something like "I love Austin" or "I hear Austin is nice" so somthing similar. If I don't tell them where I grew up, and only say "I went to UT", I occassionally get people who ask if I mean The University of Texas or the University of Tennessee, but that is rare. Most people expect I am talking about Texas. Johntex\talk 20:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I do not go to UT-Austin. --Wordbuilder 20:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
the other schools are minor, and i am an Aggie saying this. Oldag07 15:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm astonished that there is a redirect to the system for University of North Carolina and not to the Chapel Hill campus specifically. UNC-Chapel Hill was the very first state-school in the history of the United States, so redirecting University of North Carolina to the system as a whole is a huge insult, in my opinion.
All of my extended relatives live outside of the state of Texas, and none of them are even aware that there are technically many UT campuses; they all consider "The University of Texas" to be UT-Austin. Anyone who actively follows Division I sports knows that not only does "UT" (normally) or "The University of Texas" refer to UT-Austin, but simply the word "Texas" refers to the Longhorns in burnt orange. The fact that people oustide of the state of Texas have even heard of a UT campus other than Austin is incomprehensible to me, except for the fact that UTEP occasionally makes a football bowl game.
Within the state of Texas, but even more so outside of Texas, people assume that when a person says "I go to The University of Texas" he or she is talking about UT-Austin, in most cases because they don't even realize that other UT schools exist.BareAss 22:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
It is not a matter of a schools reputation. The University of Texas is a system of schools in Texas. The University of Texas at Austin is the flagship campus. I do not doubt that many people use "University of Texas" or "UT" with the intention Ut-Austin. I feel no harm would occur with University of Texas redirecting to the University of Texas System page as UT-Austin is mentioned in the first paragraph of the UT System page. By redirecting simply to a particular campus within that system you are ultimately hiding information that an individual may be seeking. The University of Texas System is the most logical redirect for University of Texas. LonghornsGuy07 20:26, 5 August 2007
  • No information is hidden. The very first sentence of this article contains a link to the UT system. Most people looking up UT will be looking for this campus. For the person looking for info on the system, the link is right there. No one is going to be confused or unable to find the information they are looking for. This layout makes the most sense since it presents the most relevant information for the greatest number of readers. Johntex\talk 13:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • There are over 140,000 students that attend a school in the UT System other than UT-Austin. This number is much too large to ignore. It is offensive to other students to say that their school isn't as important as UT-Austin. With this mindset Texas will always lack in education. Saying that most people looking up University of Texas will be searching for a particular campus within a large system is an opinion. The numbers show that there are a lot more people in the UT System that do not attend or teach at UT-Austin. I find it shameful to direct all attention for the University of Texas to a single school. I'd hope that pride wouldn't have to be an issue, but it appears it has. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.155.86.194 (talk • contribs) 06:23, August 10, 2007 (UTC).

utaustin needs to go to utaustin, the ut is the system, have that go to the system. that's about it. keep it official. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:ElpasoHead (talk • contribs)


I don't buy the "consensus" argument. Wikipedia editors shouldn't have popularity contests for names; should the majority of editors decide to call a duck a fish, it's still not the proper name. But there's no official definition for "University of Texas" (trust me, I looked), so really, it can mean either one. Colloquial usage, though, almost always refers to the Austin campus. UT-Austin is only really referred to as such in official publications from UT System or the the Texas Educational Code. Or colloquially to qualify when the meaning is unclear. The dictionaries I looked in only referred to the Austin branch.
That's not to say it's not a controversial name, and I completely understand wanting to change the redirect. It really is kind of a diss to the other schools in the system. I'd like to see the legislature or the board of regents define "University of Texas" as referring to the entire system. And that's what they should do if they're interested in long-term decentralization. But barring a coup in the official lexicon, there doesn't seem to be any objective reason for doing so.
Moreover, Wikipedia has a guidelines for controversial names. When in doubt, "the most common use of a name takes precedence" Also, "editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another." The disambiguation at the top of the page is certainly warranted, but I don't see a reason to change it. I wish there were one.
In any case, I like Led Zeppelin, and since I'm too lazy for parentheses, whenever I go to look up John Paul Jones, I get a page on some 18th century dead guy I could care less about. I want to read up on Stairway to Heaven, man! But come on. It's just one button click away from my daily fix of sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll. I can deal with that.Guyminuslife 04:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I am seeing good arguments for both sides of this argument, but it seems the current setup is best. There is a link to the system page at the top . . . The Austin school is the first or second largest in the nation by itself. It's what people are referring to when they think of Divsion I sports, and for many of the system's major schools. I live in Texas but am not a UT student. Do we have a link to the Wikpedia policy page on redirects leading to the most common page? This is a common argument on many pages with related topics. Deatonjr (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to "raise the dead" but after reading the Texas State Historical Association's article on The University of Texas at Austin, it clearly states in the ninth paragraph: On March 6, 1967, the Sixtieth Texas Legislature changed the official name of the main university to University of Texas at Austin. Every other reference that is dated prior to 67' is called University of Texas. Just to let ya'll know... NThomas76207 (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no mention of the name change in the article itself. Shouldn't this part of the university's history be mentioned, as it is in articles on other members of the University of Texas System? As an (old) UT graduate living and working in Austin, I have had to delete the anachronistic words "at Austin", added by younger, overly helpful editors, from mentions of my degrees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.86.92.198 (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

GA comment

For the article to maintain its GA status, the copyrighted images need detailed fair use rationales. Look to other passed GA/FAs for examples. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions. --Nehrams2020 07:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clearer, but almost every single university GA that I looked at had this problem and I didn't have time to go through and mention each and every image that needed a FUR. Any copyrighted image, or any non-free image, needs a FUR according to the GA criteria. The images in question for this article are Image:UT Austin seal.png and Image:Texas.gif. Please let me know when they are added. --Nehrams2020 05:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I had checked all the photos and found them to be all free. I didn't check the logos. FAR's have now been added for both logos. Best, Johntex\talk 17:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization Useage

Officially, UT is known as "The University of Texas at Austin." The "T" in "The" is NOT capitalized in the middle of a sentence. Likewise, "university" is ONLY capitalized in the complete proper name, and NOT in the casual phrase, "the university," even if it refers to UT Austin. Please note that these styles are set by the university's office of public affairs. They represent changes from year's past, but they should dictate all future references to the university. 

--macae 09:43, 4 June 2007
  • Can you give us a link to the PA office's site to read these styles for ourselves? TheMindsEye 16:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You are completely wrong - do not change the capitalization on this page. See http://www.utexas.edu/visualguidelines/styleguide.html ChrisKennedy(talk) 23:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • If you follow this guideline, shouldn't all instances of "UT" be eliminated from the article and all instances of "The University of Texas" be followed by "at Austin"? I do not think that "the" should be capitalized aside from the beginning of a sentence. Also, "university" should not be capitalized unless it's at the beginning of a sentence or part of a title (e.g. "the University of Texas"). Right now the article renders "university" both ways with no rhyme or reason. It's inconsistent and it looks bad. --Wordbuilder 00:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Our current style guide for this case can be found here, which notes that "the" should not be capitalized if used in the middle of a sentence. This is the version you see more often, as most mainstream news media and such don't capitalize the "T." Some of macae's edits probably weren't great — changing the standalone "The University of Texas," for example — but he's certainly not completely wrong; rather, you've been completely wrong in your quick judgments. It seems that you're not exactly sure as to what a style guide is used for. No style guide should ever be the end-all-be-all source to justify an abrupt, wholesale revert, especially when discussion has been brought up on the talk page. — Rebelguys2 talk 10:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • That isn't exactly what the Wikipedia style guide says: "Where a title starts with the, it typically starts with lowercase t when the title occurs in the middle of a sentence (“a degree from the University of Sydney”); usage on the webpage of the institution may confirm whether this is the case." It states a tendency, but it doesn't provide a uniform guideline on the matter one way or the other. On the contrary, it acknowledges that there isn't a uniform convention, and it implies that the ultimate decision should be made with reference to how the institution refers to itself. ~ João Do Rio 03:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The link ChrisKennedy provided does not indicate that "The" should be capitalized in the middle of a sentence. The Mccombs link provided does say specifically that the "the" should not be capitalized as per University of Texas policy. And as Wordbuilder pointed out, Wiki's current style guide also directs that "The" should not be capitalized as part of the proper name of an institution. --Macae 16:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, ChrisKennedy's guide does imply that "the" should be capitalized based on its usage of the name of the university within its own text. But that guide shouldn't be used as the sole justification for capital letters, nor should the McCombs guide be used as the sole justification for lowercase letters. Neither choice is completely right or wrong, but we should strive to make our work as a whole (Wikipedia) consistent. That asks that we follow our own style guide, which isn't the end-all-be-all, either, as style guides are just that — guides. — Rebelguys2 talk 17:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
        • The McCombs guide was a very wrong description of how to follow UT stylistic guidelines. Just because a page exists on the web does not make it an authoritative or accurate source. I alerted the University to the page, and it has been removed. -ChrisKennedy(talk) 19:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
          • So what is the consensus here? I say it's best if we follow Wikipedia's guidelines, as Rebelguys2 pointed out, in order to keep the format of the university's name consistent in all the articles. After all, this is Wikipedia. BlueAg09 (Talk) 19:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • ChrisKennedy is correct; the McCombs citation is an inferior reference. The University's style guide is more authoritative than a web page of an individual school within The University. The reference Chris gave does specifically use a capital "The" when preceding "University of Texas" in the middle of a sentence. This occurs at the start of the second paragraph: "But every publication or Web site at The University of Texas at Austin has one thing in common,..."

The most relevant guideline on Wikipedia is to use the correct name of things, hence Tsunami as opposed to "tidal wave". This page should be at The University of Texas at Austin and we should use a capital for "The" even when it occurs in the middle of a sentence. Johntex\talk 05:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • This is correct. The University Style Guide is the most authoritative reference. The conflicting McCombs School guidelines have been removed altogether. I also agree that this page should be moved to "The University of Texas at Austin." In the case of most universities following the naming format of "University of [state/region/city]," the official name begins with "University." This isn't the case with all such universities, and it isn't the case with UT; the University's official name begins with "The." The University of Alabama and The University of Montana are examples of other universities named in the same fashion. ~ João Do Rio 03:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I disagree about moving the page. Leaving it here and having a redirect page at The University of Texas at Austin is sufficient, just as The Ohio State University redirects to Ohio State University. →Wordbuilder 13:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
      • An internal memo as to how people within the university should refer to themselves is one thing, but that is THEIR style guide, not Wikipedia's. Additionally, the Texas Constitution says otherwise. Personally, I think that this capitalized "T" thing is a big of a marketing ploy by the longhorns to cement themselves as "The University of Texas" with the implication that all other schools are just knock-offs...this is the real school (in the interests of full disclosure, I am an Aggie) — BQZip01 — talk 00:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
        • As you say, the original argument for having the University's leading article capitalized goes back to the Texas constitution making arrangements for funding a University of Texas; thus, it was the University of Texas, and its name became "The University of Texas". One can argue (correctly, as I understand it) that Texas A&M also came from this funding provision or that the Constitution does not capitalize "the", but the school's title remains "The University of Texas". The University of Texas at Austin does not drop or lowercase its article, and neither should you.[1] Wikipedia, in order to be authoritative, should honor official nomenclature throughout: both in its page titles and in its textual references. Other universities are different, and Wikipedia should honor their preferred usages, too. 128.83.68.58 (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The correct name for this university is "The University of Texas at Austin" as presented at [24] ThreeE 00:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Review of Good Article status

Once an article attains GA status, it must remain at that quality level or improve. If the quality declines, the article can lose its GA status. The concerns I have for this article are:

  • The Matthew McConaughey image. (Disclaimer: I am the one who tagged it as PUI and it may yet be ruled acceptable for Wikipedia.) This issue is fairly minor.
  • The "UT in popular culture" section appears to be trivia. Very little or none of it actually contributes to the article. It's just a bunch of disconnected fluff. This is a major issue.
  • Almost none of the "UT in popular culture" section contains citations. Of course, if it's deleted, no problem. However, if it stays, it must at least be verifiable. This is a major issue.

Please understand, I'm not attacking. I believe that failing to correct these issues weakens the article and makes it a bad example of what a GA should look like. If these things are not fixed or if the consensus is to allow them to remain unchanged, then I will nominate the article for a review of its GA status and get feedback from a larger sampling of editors. →Wordbuilder 00:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for review at WP:GA/R. Please feel free to participate in the discussion there. →Wordbuilder 20:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I've responded there. jareha (comments) 02:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted both the gallery of "notable people" (which included the photo of Matthew McConaughey) and the "UT in popular culture" section, which hopefully addresses all the concerns you've raised. jareha (comments) 07:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Might want to fix the refs according to WP:CITE. miranda 16:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

t.u.?

Someone has added this university to the disambig page at t.u.. I thought it was UT? Isn't this kinda like a POV redirect? ThreeE 21:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a neutral term, but it's notable and widely used, which is the issue here. -- RG2 22:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not a redirect, either. It is a disamgiuation page. The disambig page explains it is a derogatory term, so it seems it is explained in its proper context. We have nigger and jap and pollack and wetback and cracker and gay and yankee also. Slurs have their place on Wikipedia, so long as they are correctly explained.
ThreeE is in a dispute with BQZip01 and I think this post may be an attempt at trolling up conflict or a violation of WP:CANVASS.
Don't feed the trolls Johntex\talk 00:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a simple question, and the user you refer to has posted over 30 similar questions on user talk pages. But somehow, you see me as the canvasser and troll. ThreeE 01:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The other user can post 100 times and they are not trolling if the posts are neutrally worded. The other user can be guilty of canvassing and it still wouldn't excuse you of committing the same offense.
Perhaps you are not canvassing. I will strike that point of my comment. But yes, I am increasingly coming to view your actions as trolling. Johntex\talk 01:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

laying it on kinda thick

overall the rankings section seems a bit much, IMHO. most reasonable folks will agree that UT Austin is a premier institution. listing every ranking one can find may strike the reader as unnecessary and undignified. for instance:

"U.S. News & World Report consistently ranks Texas as the best public university in the state of Texas." that's stating the obvious (although Aggies would have a pretty legit reason to protest). typically stating an institution is the best in a state ain't saying much at all and only lesser institutions should have to resort to such statements.
"Number one law school in the nation for Hispanics"...
"UT Austin does not have a medical school, but has associated programs with other campuses and allied health professional programs on campus." this statement really necessary? absense of a medical school doesn't really correlate to the quality of an institution. Mct mht (talk) 07:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
What about readers who are out of state? They'll most likely be unaware of these facts.--BirdKr (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

FA

Should I nominate this for FA status? RC-0722 communicator/kills 22:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have it peer reviewed to find out what needs to be improved in order to meet the featured article criteria. It definitely can't become a FA now, as there currently are too many lists and missing citations, among other issues. BlueAg09 (Talk) 22:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with BlugAg. Go with the peer review first. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
OK. RC-0722 communicator/kills 19:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Redundant name in infobox

I have removed the name of the university in the infobox because the logo used would match the inclusion of the name so explicitly. User:NThomas76207 reverted this move without any reference to my original edit; hence, I redid the edit, but if there are any objections, please talk about them here first. Even if other UT universities include the name, it just looks so tacky and unintelligible in this case. I'm interested to here how others feel, though. Thanks! --Eustress (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You should not have removed the name from the top of the infobox, even though it is repeated in the graphic. Having the name at the top of the infobox is standard regardless of what the logo says. This isn't an ad; it's Wikipedia. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind stating what style guide says it is required? I think it's just suggested, and in this case, I think it is better without. --Eustress (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes), which state, "... the fields in an infobox should be consistent across every article using it..." In practice, not all infoboxes are consistent, but we should strive for that and this doesn't fit within "causes of inconsistency". →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the page for the University Infobox (specific section), it clearly states along with established and city, name is a required field. I do agree however both the name field and the word mark are redundant but just like User:Wordbuilder said "This isn't an ad; it's Wikipedia". I added the The University of Texas at Austin Wordmark because the seal was removed. FA articles like Michigan State University, University of California, Riverside, Georgetown University and Cornell University all have the university's seal in the "image_name" field, and the official wordmark in the "logo" field. So in addition to adding the required field "name", can we move the wordmark to "logo" and add the university's seal back to the "image_name" field? NThomas76207 (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, does anyone know why the seal was removed in the first place? Copyright issues? If the seal could be put back on, then the article would be consistent with the aforementioned universities, in both the name and picture items of the university infobox. Thank you for your insights! --Eustress (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The seal was removed because no one added a fair use rationale (FUR) to it. That was the only issue that I saw for it being deleted. I see no reason it couldn't be uploaded again, a proper FUR with valid backlink added, and be put back into the article (see this as an example). Remember it has to have an FUR for every article in which it is used. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Besides this page what other pages would the UT Seal be used on?NThomas76207 (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Tech's academic logo (not official seal) appears in the articles for the individual colleges. I don't know what kind of articles UT has in that regard or what logo would be used for them. →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyway to find out where the last UT seal was located (url)? NThomas76207 (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's the one that used to be here: UT seal. →Wordbuilder (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wordmark

I undid the edit by Eustress (talk) that removed the university wordmark to better match other university articles. While it is redundant, the "logo" field contains the wordmark for each of the following universities:
1.) Cornell University (FA)
 2.) Georgetown University (FA)
 3.) Michigan State University (FA)
 4.) University of California, Riverside (FA)
 5.) Florida State University
 6.) University of Chicago
 7.) University of Houston
 8.) University of North Dakota
 9.) University of Oxford, (although in reverse; Wordmark is the "image" and the seal is the "logo")
 According to the university's Visual Guidelines section on the wordmark, The University of Texas at Austin wordmark is the primary means by which we are recognized and should appear on as many forms of communication as possible. I interpret this to include Wikipedia. Ultimately our goal is to reach FA status and copying the same format as other featured articles should only help to enhance this page. NThomas76207 (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've resized the logo a bit smaller and removed the disclaimer (which none of the FAs you have referenced carry). Thanks! --Eustress (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Cool. I never realized they weren't on those other pages... Disclaimer just seems to get in the way. NThomas76207 (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

UT Tower Shooting

I removed the following text from the Campus section of the article and replaced it with a brief summary because I felt it was very tangential to the section. It could possibly go in its own article or something, but I just wanted to inform everyone of the change. Thanks! --Eustress (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

On August 1 1966, Charles Whitman, a former U.S. marine and architectural engineering major at the university, barricaded himself on the observation deck of the tower of the Main Building with a Remington 700 6 mm rifle and various other weapons. In the ensuing 96-minute stand-off, Whitman killed 14 people and wounded an additional 31 before himself being killed by police who stormed the observation tower.[2] Later, the observation deck was closed until 1968 and closed again in 1975 following a series of suicide jumps. During the time of the shooting, the tower was open to the public.

Agreed. I never felt that that extensive of a writeup of the event belonged in this article. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The incident is never mentioned prior to its inclusion in the Campus section discussing the Main Building. Maybe a brief summary about the incident should be included in the history section since it is noteworthy. The following is from the History of the University of Texas at Austin and the bold section is described later in the campus section in reference to the incident. Should it be omitted or rewritten if this were to be copied to the History section? NThomas76207 (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

On August 1, 1966, Charles Whitman barricaded himself in the observation deck of the tower of the Main Building with a sniper rifle and various other weapons, killed 14 Austin residents, and wounded many more. Following the Whitman incident, the observation deck was closed until 1968, and then closed again in 1975 following a series of suicide jumps during the 1970s. In 1998, after installation of security and safety precautions, the tower observation deck reopened to the public.

University Identity

According to The University of Texas at Austin's "University Identity Guidelines"

Name

The University of Texas at Austin

Our national and international identity hinges on the words “The University of Texas at Austin.” Do not use the acronym “UT” or the abbreviated name “UT Austin” when communicating to mixed or outside audiences. Beyond our community of “insiders,” this acronym is not well or universally recognized and outside of Texas may be confused with other institutions.

When writing for internal audiences familiar with the university, it is acceptable to refer to the university as UT Austin.

From: http://www.utexas.edu/visualguidelines/styleguide.html

Something like this talk page, would include an internal audience and UT or UT Austin would be appropriate. The formal article page should only have the proper name. I corrected this only a few days ago and now doing it again. It is a good idea for all wikipedia editors to abide by these guidelines and respect the university's wishes. NThomas76207 (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article notes that the university is also called "UT". I think readers would understand that this refers to the University of Texas at Austin itself as they are reading its page. BlueAg09 (Talk) 05:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. How do the articles for other universities handle this? As I recall, most of them use both the formal and informal names to avoid the sound of redundancy. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, this seems like a ridiculous request. Every technical writing book I've used suggests presenting the formal name up front with its accompanying abbreviation, and then using the abbreviation to be more concise and avoid redundancy. If you're worried about university identity, we could use the abbreviation "UT Austin", since the University of Tennessee is also a UT, but I think repeating the entire name is very unprofessional. Wikipedia does not have to adhere to UT's guidelines, only to Wikipedia's. --Eustress (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
We should take these guidelines into account as, at best, a recommendation. We are most certainly not bound to abide by them.
With that said, these particular recommendations are very insightful. There are many institutions that lay claim to the abbreviation "UT" and using it outside of particular contexts could indeed lead to confusion. However, this particular article is not one of those contexts so I do not object to the use of "UT" in this article. "UT Austin" would be an acceptable compromise, however, as "UT" may be more closely tied to the system and not this one institution. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Addition of New Images

The previous University of Texas at Austin Wikipedia entry contained very few images of the university's architectural highlights, for which the university's beautiful campus is known. To remedy this, I added images of the following buildings: Battle Hall, Littlefield House, a relief from the Texas Memorial Museum, Gregory Gymnasium and the former front of Darrell K. Royal Texas Memorial Stadium. Additionally, I swapped the black-and-white image of the tower with a more befitting image showing the tower lit in orange. In the Athletics section, I added two images of Texas football games, which showcase many students enjoying the football game in favor of an image showing a single person with a Rose Bowl flag enjoying the game. Generally, images showcasing only one student do not have a place in a Wikipedia entry for a university. All of the images I used come from Wikimedia Commons and meet Wikipedia's strict copyright policy for images. (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2008

Rankings section overhaul

The previous revision of the Rankings section was very good. However, I decided to format the information in a table so that it looks cleaner and is easier to read. Additionally, I added a table indicating rankings for various programs in The Graduate School. (talk) 03:55, 17 July 2008

The Rankings section has been a mess for a long time, with facts about the same programs scattered throughout the article, a lot of uncited claims, and a lot of "wordiness". I've significantly modified the section for (what I think is) the better—the section starting with overall rankings and then working down to individual programs. I've included the original text below for your convenience. Go Longhorns! --Eustress (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

U.S. News & World Report consistently ranks The University of Texas at Austin as the best public university in the state of Texas. In its 2008 rankings, Texas places forty-fourth among all national universities and twelfth among public universities in the U.S.[3] U.S. News & World Report also lists Cockrell School of Engineering among the top ten in six different fields, with an overall rank of eleven.[4]

A 2005 report by USA Today ranked the university "the number one source of new Fortune 1000 CEOs". A Bloomberg survey also ranked the McCombs School of Business fifth among all business schools and first among public business schools with the most number of alumni among the S&P 500 CEOs.[5]

The "Top Research Universities" list in the 2005 Faculty Scholarly Productivity Index of The Chronicle of Higher Education lists the university among the top ten in sixteen of the 104 individual disciplines that were evaluated as part of the study. [6]

In a 2005 report on the innovativeness of universities worldwide conducted by the Research Center for Innovation and Development of Zhejiang University in Hangzhou, China, The University of Texas at Austin ranked fourth among 200 institutions around the world, behind Harvard University, Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley.[7]

In its first World University Ranking in 2004, The Times Higher Education Supplement listed The University of Texas at Austin as the fifteenth-best university worldwide. The same study ranked the university twenty-sixth worldwide in 2005 and thirty-second in 2006.[8][9] Additionally, the university was ranked as the thirtieth-best university in the country and 39th-best in the world by the Institute of Higher Education at Shanghai Jiao Tong University.[10]

In 2007, The Washington Monthly, using a ranking system which stresses social factors the magazine considers important (such as how well it performs as an engine of social mobility, how well it does in fostering scientific and humanistic research, and how well it promotes an ethic of service to country) ranked UT Austin nineteenth among national American universities, higher than prestigious Ivy League universities such as Princeton and Harvard, and second in the state only to first-ranked Texas A&M University.[11]

The University of Texas at Austin does not have a medical school, but has associated programs with other campuses and allied health professional programs on campus. The College of Pharmacy, for example, is ranked second in the United States.[12]

Other overall rankings include:[13]

  • Number one law school in the nation for Hispanics. (September 2004 edition of Hispanic Business magazine).
  • Number two nationally for the School of Architecture. According to DesignIntelligence, the undergraduate architecture program was ranked second in the nation for 2006 (best in the state of Texas). The graduate architecture program was ranked sixth, and the interior design program was also ranked sixth.
  • Ranked eighth among U.S. public universities and twenty-seventh overall in 2006 by Newsweek magazine's August 2006 list of the top 100 global universities.
  • McCombs School of Business ranked thirteenth in the country on BusinessWeek magazine's list of the top undergraduate business schools.
  • Rated seventh in the world in the amount of cited research by faculty members, according to The Times of London, November 5, 2004, edition.
  • In the most recent survey by the National Research Council, seven UT doctoral programs ranked in the top ten in the nation and twenty-two departments ranked in the top twenty-five. Among Texas schools, the university ranked first in thirty of the 37 fields in which it was evaluated.[14]
  • The College of Education was ranked as the 10th best in the United States by U.S. News & World Report in 2008.
  • McCombs School of Business ranked eighteenth by The Wall Street Journal's annual ranking of the best business schools.
  • The College of Fine Arts' School of Music is ranked among the top twenty graduate schools in the arts granting a Master of Music degree in the United States in U.S. News & World Report
  • Designated as "one of the best overall bargains" by The Princeton Review in its "America's Best Value Colleges" 2007 edition.
  • Among top twenty "best buys" within public colleges and universities, according to the 2007 Fiske Guide to Colleges.
  • Ranked twenty-fourth in 2007 by Kiplinger's Personal Finance magazine's listing for the "100 Best Values in Public Colleges".
  • Ranked ninth worldwide in the 2007 Webometrics rankings.[15]
Added back in the Washington Monthly ranking comparison between A&M and UT-Austin. Considering the number of Texas high school students choosing between the two schools, this comparison is valuable information. To remove the A&M reference while maintaining the mention of higher rankings by Harvard and Princeton appears to be a biased editorial decision. --Macae (talk) 02:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The TAMU reference is irrelevant and potentially POV, so I have removed it again. However, in all fairness, I've removed the references to Harvard and Princeton as well. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Potentially POV? It is a factual statistic. Removing it while maintaining the Harvard and Princeton references represented a POV edit. But if you would prefer to remove those as well, at least it then represents a consistent edit. Seemed like they all were valid comparisons to make and worthy of inclusion but I will not start an edit war over it. --Macae (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not uncommon for school rankings to be compared to each other. That is, in fact, what a ranking is: a comparison of a current school's position against those of other schools. I see no POV problem with the inclusion of all three comparisons so long as they are supported by citations. will381796 (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Selecting which comparisons to make, even when they're "factual" and supported by references, is inherently POV. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
...but now that I take another look at this issue in context, I don't think including both the Ivy League institutions and TAMU is bad or objectionable. The phrase originally used to describe TAMU ("first-ranked") is redundant and a bit of a needle but if that's removed then I don't object to including both references. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Now, if someone opens up US News & World Report Rankings and picks 3 random schools to compare to school A, then yeah, that's pretty POV. But if an article in a magazine or journal or whatever reliable source you care to use makes the specific comparison within the body of the text, then I see no problem with its inclusion. The first example is POV as we the editor are choosing which school rankings to compare and present in the article. The second example is, in my opinion, not POV as we are not the one making the comparison. The editors would simply be adding a fact reported by another reliable source. We're not the one making the comparison and deciding what to compare to what. An independent, verifable, reliable source did. All we're doing is listing what has been published. will381796 (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, since the ranking in question (UT Austin #19; from source http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0709.natlrankings.pdf) doesn't directly make any comparisons between specific schools, it's probably best just to leave it as is, and readers can follow the link to the original file to make their own comparisons and conclusions. --Eustress (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Should we add Template:Infobox US university ranking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NThomas76207 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I would be opposed to the addition for sake of room in the article and also because it mostly uses one (USNWR) ranking. --Eustress (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
As a note, some of those rankings are outdated. For example, UT Austin has dropped to 51 in the newest THES ranking. UT is now 26 instead of 16 in the ranking by Zhejiang. Whsie (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The years are shown with the rankings...if you can update them, please do; if not, please provide a reference so we can update them. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 12:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The latest THES ranking is here-http://www.topuniversities.com/worlduniversityrankings/results/2007/overall_rankings/top_400_universities/ with UT at 51. Whsie (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.utexas.edu/visualguidelines/vg_nomen.html
  2. ^ Rossi, Victoria (August 1, 2006). "After decades of silence, UT acknowledged shootings". Daily Texan. Retrieved 2006-08-01. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ America's Best Colleges 2008 US News and World Report. Accessed August 19, 2007.
  4. ^ America's Best Graduate Schools 2008: Top Engineering Schools US News and World Report. Accessed August 20 2007.
  5. ^ The University of Texas at Austin ranks No. 1 as source of new Fortune 1000 CEOs | News from The University of Texas at Austin
  6. ^ Chronicle Facts & Figures: Faculty Scholarly Productivity Index
  7. ^ Rankings & Kudos : About UT : The University of Texas at Austin
  8. ^ Britain wins eight places in world list of 50 best universities Accessed January 22, 2007
  9. ^ UT Austin wins 15th place in world list of 200 best universities Accessed May 8, 2007
  10. ^ Academic Ranking of World Universities 2006, retrieved January 5, 2007
  11. ^ "The Washington Monthly College National Rankings" (PDF). The Washington Monthly. August 2007. Retrieved 2007-08-21. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  12. ^ "America's Best Graduate Schools 2007: Health: Pharmacy" (HTML). U.S. News & World Report. 2006-09-15. Retrieved 2007-01-06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  13. ^ Rankings & Kudos : About UT : The University of Texas at Austin
  14. ^ "Rankings". The University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved 2007-08-17.
  15. ^ World Universities' ranking on the Web: top 4000 World Ranking
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Texas_at_Austin/Archive_4&oldid=1143869402"