Jump to content

Talk:Glossary of Texas A&M University terms/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Privileges

Seems like it is I come up with the most ideas to add to pages at the least convenient times. during FA/FL reviews. Oh well.

When skimming though the corps dictionary, the terms, "SP", "JP", and "ZP", all stuck out in my head. doing a quick google search, it would seem that they are not common terms in other ROTC programs. I am not sure if one "privileges" section would suffice. This would allow us to shorten the wildcat, whoop sections, and pull out sections. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Texas_Aggie_terms&action=edit&section=12 Moreover, the term "dead elephant" I think could be shortened to the term "dead". We can explain that "dead" aggies, are considered "people" again, they are no longer allowed to give privileges to students anymore.

SP, JP, ZP, are all found in the corps dictionary reference, witch should make it easier.

These are big changes, and we should wait until the end of the review. Oldag07 (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Concur. No one says we can't impove it further once the review is over. — BQZip01 — talk 05:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

First draft:

Privilege (SP, JP, ZP)
A ranking system based on one's class year with determines what traditions and Aggie student is allowed to perform. The privilege levels are, SP, JP, and ZP's, sophomore, junior, and senior privileges respectively[1]. Freshmen have "fish privileges".[2] While, in the Corps, one's privilege level has an enormous effect on a cadet's lifestyle, some rules like the wildcatting or whooping rules extends to non-regs. A member of a higher ranking can temporarily give their level of privileges to a member of a lower class often as a reward and breaking rank can result in one doing push ups.

Oldag07 (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Recently Reverted

I changed these back or modified them for the following reasons:

  1. Kept A&M -> A&M
    Excellent call!
  2. Modified changing the "land grant school" link to Aggie -> land grant school
    I modified this to go to Aggie#Schools. The point is to lead the reader to the disambiguation page which contains these schools. Realize there are many land grant schools which do not call themselves Aggies. The point here is to link the similar terms.
  3. Reverted changing the traditions link of "Howdy" -> Howdy
    This links directly to a more detailed explanation of the tradition of "howdy" at the University. Simply linking to howdy misses this informative link and links only to the popular term.
  4. Kept changing the Texas Longhorn -> Texas Longhorns
    As awkward as it sounds, it is grammatically correct. Nice catch!

— BQZip01 — talk 05:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Right now, the link to Howdy is a disambiguation link, we can't have that. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Typo on my part. I meant to link it here instead. — BQZip01 — talk 20:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion Criteria

This is what i think it should be.

  • Terms unique our used in unique ways related to Texas A&M.
  • Major Bonfire terms
  • Major Athletics related terms
  • Terms not exclusively used by the Corps
  • Major traditions.
  • Terms related to major traditions
  • Terms that could be found on a basic tour of the university.

Suggestions. How do we convert that to prose? Oldag07 (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ol' Lady or Old Lady
Corps of Cadet member's roommate.[2]

Oldag07 (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to rename page

On our featured list nomination, a suggestion has been made to rename our page from "List of Texas Aggie terms" to "List of Texas A&M Aggie terms". I am neutral on the matter, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on the issue. Oldag07 (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(Moved from FLC page)

  • I guess we could rename this "List of Texas A&M Aggie terms". I don't think there is any other set of "Texas Aggies" other than those associated with the Texas A&M system. While from my experience, the dominant usage of the term Aggies, generally goes with "Texas Aggies", I have heard in some in some sports contexts my school's teams are refered to as the "Texas A&M Aggies". That being said, I am going to post something on the talk page, so we can get second opinions on the issue from some of the other major editors to the page. If there is a consensus to change it we will change it. Oldag07 (talk) 05:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • To play the role of devil's advocate, "List of Texas A&M Aggie terms" as opposed to "List of Texas Aggie terms" would give the page a stronger association to the university. While in Texas, maybe even the United States, "Texas Aggies" are directly associated with the university, I would question the validity of that logic internationally. That being said, would the new set of redirects that i have created suffice? Oldag07 (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Howdy and T camp

Thanks to the person behind the ip address: 75.111.129.111

Copy and pasted additions of howdy and t camp that might be added after ftc nomination. I am not sure if these terms are more appropriate merged into the fish camp section, or if they should separate sections. that being said, references for both these need citation templates.

Howdy Camp
A student-run orientation program for new Aggies planning to attend Texas A&M University in the spring semester.[3]
T-Camp or Transfer Camp
A optional three-day retreat for students who transfer into Texas A&M in the fall. Refered to as "A Transfer's first Tradition."[4]

Oldag07 (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Oldag07. — BQZip01 — talk 03:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Good Scholarly Source

I found this really good thesis with many Aggie terms. I am going to add this citation to this page, it would also be good to spread this out to other Aggie pages once we get the time.Oldag07 (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Reminded me of two more words we can add.

Old ag
Synonymous for a former Texas A&M student.[5]

(LOL)

And

Aggie War Hymn
Texas A&M's fight song.[5]

BQ

I'm requesting a quote from the purportedly reliable source to verify this. From the limited amount of the cited article that is available to non-paying visitors it appears that this is an op-ed piece and certainly not a WP:RS on the definition of the term. One person using the term in passing in an opinion piece is about as un-reliable as it gets, and the term smacks of an attack term, or at least a WP:COATRACK. If a quotation cannot be provided, the term should be either deleted, or the colloquial use removed. Toddst1 (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added a quote as you requested. It is not an attack, but rather "good-natured banter". The source is "considered the best US-based source in the field" and the author has written over 100 pieces for that publication. EagleAg04 (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
What is the context of the piece in the CHE? As I mentioned above, the bit that I read made it look like an op-ed piece which is clearly not a WP:RS per Wikipedia:Rs#Statements_of_opinion:

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion.

The passage that you posted reinforces my initial belief. Unless we can come up with something more reliable, this should be removed, unless you want to characterize it as someone's opinion. Toddst1 (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Keeping this all in one place to avoid fragmentation of the discussion (since it's related)
  1. That is one source of many. Feel free to take your pick of another if you don't like that article
  2. As for that particular piece, the statement is of fact (i.e. Obama signed the XYZ bill yesterday), not opinion (i.e. Obama's healthcare plan is better than all the rest.) The reliability of the statement is not in question and other sources can be provided, if so desired.
  3. As for the disambiguation page, from the guideline you cited: "A short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context."
Accordingly, I'm going to revert on the disambiguation page, but please feel free to discuss further. — BQZip01 — talk 23:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The sources I saw from that list use wikipedia as a source or are otherwise unreliable (blogs etc). If you have a copy of the source cited, I would really like to review it, please. Email would be fine. If you are correct, it would be great to put this issue to rest. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
To start with, here's a couple from the Association of Former Students: [1] [2]. I'm sure I can find more...but I need sleep. G'night. — BQZip01 — talk 07:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I was never a big fan of the BQ statement. Like Quack shack, i don't think it is a phrase "unique to Texas A&M University"

Note if this is not challenged by the end of September, I am going to take the BQ statement off. Oldag07 (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The meaning attached to it is far deeper than simply being "Band Queer". As stated, it was originally "Band Qualified" and morphed into "Band Queer". While BQ itself isn't unique to A&M, this meaning and its dominant usage is. Additionally, mentioning "CT" without mentioning "BQ" is simply leaving out pertinent information "A CT is a cadet who is not in the band"..."Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh what do they call band members then?"
The urbandictionary sources above aren't reliable, babylon is a mirror of Wikipedia answers.yahoo.com doesn't mention it in the same capacity, and the last one is a BYU forum; none are reliable by any stretch, but it does show the spread outside A&M. — BQZip01 — talk 03:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
None of the are "reliable" persay. I knew band friends in high school who have personally called themselves BQ's, way before I went to A&M. I don't necessary think this is justification to remove it, but I do understand why this term is getting flak. Oldag07 (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Wildbot

I hate wildbot. While the links are linking to dabs, they are going to the correct place. Oldag07 (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move to Glossary of Texas A&M University terms

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

List of Texas Aggie terms → Glossary of Texas A&M University terms – I was browsing the featured lists section of WikiProject Universities, and surprised to see that the title of this article did not follow naming standards of other featured content. Although this list is unlike anything else on Wikipedia, standard naming conventions still apply to this article. With the exception of Fightin' Texas Aggie Band, as that is the official title of the marching band, all other non-athletics articles are titled with "Texas A&M University" such as:

The Corps of Cadets article includes Texas A&M University in the article's title (Texas A&M University Corps of Cadets) and is not titled as "The Fightin' Texas Aggie Corps of Cadets." List of Texas A&M University people isn't titled "List of Texas Aggies" and none of the spun off articles listed above have a "Texas Aggie" title instead of "Texas A&M University." NorthTechsan (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Deletion?

Is this article really appropriate? No disrespect to Texas A&M alums out there, but it seems like every major college and university in the world could have an article like this? Do we want that in Wikipedia?

Read the articles for deletion page. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Texas Aggie terms This is also a featured list. If you are that adamant about deleting it, try to nominating it for deletion again. Oldag07 (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Looks like it barely survived last time. –CWenger (^ • @) 08:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I really doubt that every major college could have a list like this. There's information in this list that is appropriate for WP that can't be found anywhere else on the site. NorthTechsan (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Er... such as? Powers T 18:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

A&M is defined by its unusual traditions. The Traditions of Texas A&M University page is 77,500 bytes. As such this is a logical spin off of that page. There is 90+ terms on this page.

Moreover, the article survived the AFD because of the extensiveness of its sources. It also is a featured list (the page undergoing even more scrutiny). Does this page fit in the gray area of what is acceptable on wikipedia? probably. At this point however, I believe that stare decisis would be the proper thing to do with this page. Oldag07 (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Stare decisis is in direct opposition to WP:Consensus can change. Personally, looking at the sources, most of the items in the glossary are sourced only to non-independent sources, and I haven't yet found a non-independent source that attempts to explain why these terms are notable. (Granted, there are so many sources that checking each one is a herculean task.) Powers T 12:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Read the afd. At a quick glance: Texas Monthly, Houston Chronicle, Western Folklore, San Diego Union-Tribune, Annals of the Association of American Geographers. I wasn't saying that stare decisis is wikipedia policy. I am saying it makes sense in this situation. Oldag07 (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The comments in the AfD list mention independent sources, but they don't say which ones actually explain the notability of the terms in this glossary, versus just mentioning a few of the terms. Powers T 02:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The San Diego Tribute article is probably the best non-independent source. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061224/news_1s24am.html Oldag07 (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
That's one of the ones I looked at. It's pretty weak, considering it was written by an A&M professor and published in reaction to a then-upcoming bowl game in San Diego. If that's the best one, it doesn't say much for the notability of the subject. Powers T 15:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a publication that is not related to Texas A&M. What are you trying to prove LtPowers? A good majority of these terms are in sports publications. Do you want to help improve this article by adding some more sources? Oldag07 (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm questioning the notability and educational value of a glossary of university-specific slang. Finding a few "human-interest"-type stories is not the same as finding the in-depth significant coverage that indicates that a subject is encyclopedic. A good article on this topic would discuss not just the terms themselves, but the history of Aggie-related slang and its impact on the broader society as a whole. None of the sources I've looked at has even come close. Powers T 02:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
We can talk in circles about this. Unless you really want to nominate this page for deletion, than I don't see the point of this discussion. This page is a logical extension of the Traditions of Texas A&M University page. Traditions are what define the school, and tradition pages are hardly uncommon on this website. As for independent sources, Houston and Dallas are not local papers. This state is huge. The Dallas Morning News and the Houston Chronicle are highly reputable and if one were to say there was a bias in these papers, they tend to cover our rival far more than our school. Oldag07 (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Rest assured this is not meant as an attack on your school. Powers T 13:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

In the end, LtPowers, I think we could argue this forever, but this won't prove anything. I think the many of the sources on this page are independent enough to prove notability. However I can respect why someone would argue otherwise. And according to that logic, this page should be deleted according to the letter of the law.

But what is wikipedia? I am not sure how long you have been editing, but this is my fourth year. This is a community. We get into arguments all the time about what wikipedia should be and what it shouldn't be. I have lost many arguments. This site doesn't completely follow its own ideals. I don't consider myself an extreme inclusionist. I have nominated many pages to be deleted. So, I do understand where you are coming from. However, one must always remember this page is maintained by volunteers. People are putting their free time into maintaining it. Sometimes the extreme legalism that some editors has turned people away from this encyclopedia. (here is an independent source [3] and here is a really sad story User_talk:Handicapper#Blocked).

Lets face it, you are continuing this argument to prove to me that you are right. I on the other hand not only want to be right, but I have 466 edits to this page. This represents hours of time, effort, and hard work. And this isn't just my work, but the work of, but of several editors. We not only defended this page against an AFD, but we also refined this page to the point where it earned featured list status. And while you might not intend to mean this, the end effect of deleting this page would mean that all of that hard work is for nothing.

And maybe you are "right". I have been your kind of "right"; the type of right that in the end is so wrong. The type of "right" that cost me relationships. There are plenty of articles that need to be removed from this site. Why try to battle over a page which is maintained by several experienced editors over many years, when there things like reviewing the good article candidates where they are practically begging people to help review them? In the end, what is best for Wikipedia LtPowers? And if you don't care about wikipedia, what is the best use of your time? I appreciate the fact that you spent so much time to critique this page LtPowers. More input would definitely be appreciated. It was fun debating you, but I end my argument here. Oldag07 (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the time you put into it, and I don't think the effort would be necessarily wasted should the content be deleted -- there are other resources out there where this content would be like gold. The newly-created http://aggies.wikia.com, for instance. Whatever happens, though, I'm certainly not battling. This is a discussion; someone else questioned the value of the page, and I agreed with that person, engaging you in discussion over it. If you think that constitutes a battle, I suggest you might be a bit too close to the subject to judge the situation neutrally. Powers T 18:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference corpsdictionary was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference frozenlake was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ howdycamp.tamu.edu
  4. ^ t-camp.tamu.edu
  5. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference SouthernCulture was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glossary_of_Texas_A%26M_University_terms/Archive_2&oldid=1136767965"