The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted 02:53, 5 March 2008.

List of Texas Aggie terms[edit]

Redirected page from Glossary of Texas Aggie terms to List of Texas Aggie terms

Self Nomination: This is the WikiProject Texas A&M's first Featured list candidate. We feel it meets all of the qualifications for a featured list Oldag07 (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I did inform members of WikiProject Texas A&M to help edit concerns that might come up in this review, including BQZip01, BlueAg09, and Karanacs Oldag07 (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that it passed an afd still doesn't mean it is a "significant topic of study". It just means it's encyclopedic. -- Scorpion0422 03:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose it is all a matter of perspective, but I would consider a major University in the U.S. a "significant topic.", but I suppose that's all a matter of perspective. Furthermore, there are a few featured articles to which it is linked, so I suppose that also adds to it. Like I said, I suppose it is all a matter of perspective. I suppose the lead could certainly be expanded. — BQZip01 — talk 04:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Matthew
    • "Graduates are not referred to as alumnus, but former students" - Surely there's something on the uni's website to reference this?
      • Fixed with the merging of the association and former students Oldag07 (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Elephant walk" under the term "Dead Elephant" shouldn't be wikilinked to the same page. And "Elephant walk" is the very next word to be defined. Surely a reader isn't going to have problems finding it?
    • "former student" and "The Association of Former Students" should be merged into one definition.
    • "Aggie jokes" is listed under J, when it clearly starts with an "A". And the term "Polish jokes" needs explaining for those who don't understand that.
      • half of this glossary would start with the word Aggie if we would go by this definition. much like what the term "university of . . . . ". would be in a list of universities. List of American state universities. that is why I ignored the word "aggie" when alphabetizing it Oldag07 (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, that's fine then.
    • "where the newly cut logs back to campus" under the term "load" doesn't make sense. Is it missing some words?
    • Texas fans respond by saying t.u. stands for "The University". Which Texas fans? University of Texas' or Texas A&E university's?
    • References 26, 29, 36, and 53 are not formatted correctly
    • "Bonfire" (and "student bonfire") is not a term reserved/thought up at the university. Look at England's Bonfire Night, which has been going since the 17th Century, and is also observed in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The term also appears in dictionaries. I would have thought that Aggie "terminology" would neither be as widespread as those countries, nor appear in dictionaries. And I'd be willing to bet that the 17th Century predates the usage at the university.
      • It is good that we have outsiders looking at this page. I changed the name to Aggie bonfire. It isn't the fact that the name "bonfire" itself is uncommon, it is the meaning that A&M gives to the term. for example, the word "Texas" generally refers to the state, but when you are talking about college football, you are referring to the University of Texas. I guess i could elaborate about the size of the actual fire, and the subsequent collapse of it that made national news. Oldag07 (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this idea. I am honestly not sure why, but i am not sure if it is a good idea to change the page while it is under review.
  • I don't see why not. The Office (U.S. season 3) has gone through two page moves during its FL review. As long as this project page is updated to point to the new location it shouldn't be a problem.
I still prefer "terminology" since the wikipedia article Term (language) redirects to terminology, but it's up to you. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe after the review, but right now, I am having problems keeping up with all the other concerns, but you make a good point Oldag07 (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead needs working on. Even though the terms "Aggie" and "A&M" are described in the body, they still need describing a little here. "Some phrases are also used by non-Aggies, such as persons associated with a rival school" could do with being referenced or removed.
  • Expanded? clarified rivals phrase Oldag07 (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • THat's a lot better, but there's a red link for "campus" now. And the following sentence begins with "and".
  • "The term is similarly used at other land grant schools in the United States and Canada." This needs referencing, and I would place the word "other" outside of the wikilink.
  • I think "such as" sounds better than "like".
  • "former students" links to someplace on the same article. It shouldn't.
  • Maybe the see also should do the trick Oldag07 (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Corps", "cut", "CT", "Main Campus", "West Campus", "Whoop" and "Yell" are all words in common English language usage, and not "words and phrases which are unique to, or hold a special meaning connected with, Texas A&M University", and so should be removed from the list. "Maroon" and "White" are recognised colour, and so also not words unique to the university.
  • Again see argument for bonfire. the university has meaning attached to these words that are not used outside the university. Oldag07 (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if I'm convinced yet... especially on words such as "main campus". They have the same meaning at every US school, college and university.
  • Removed main campus and west campus. I guess i have to work a little harder to make the rest seem more distinctive. Oldag07 (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ethnic minorities" sounds better.
  • Phrases, such as "sit down bus driver" should be in double quotes.
  • Done? Oldag07 (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only juniors and seniors are allowed to say Whoop" - both the heading and the definition of the word "Whoop" still need doing.
Not sure why it took me so long to figure out what you were saying. got it Oldag07 (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because of these reasons, I'm going to have to oppose right now, but hopefully they'll be of some help to improve the list. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's much improved already, so I'm changing to neutral. At the moment I'm still concerned about WP:Notability, though. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 17:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to butt in here, but the sources cited below come from all over the US and the world. I would assume that would make these terms clearly notable. Thoughts? — BQZip01 — talk 17:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They're still only notable to people from the university. The references use the words because the link to articles from or about the university, not about the greater world, and not the about the words specifically. I could also make arguments about WP:CRUFT, WP:IINFO and WP:MADEUP even with the references, but that was covered at the AFD (which I did not take part in it), and the reason why with the changes made based upon my comments, I went from oppose to neutral. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 22:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's kinda my point. Many of these terms are notable outside the university, even if they only reference entities of the university. These terms certainly aren't "made up" and many have existed for 100 years or more. But, hey: if we disagree, we disagree. Have a nice day. — BQZip01 — talk 23:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's much improved already, so I'm changing to neutral. At the moment I'm still concerned about WP:Notability, though. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 17:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My main qualm with the article is that the final sentence in the lead section is a fragment and needs to be fixed: "And a couple of terms on this are used by the university's rivals against Aggies and are on this list for referencing reasons."
RewordedOldag07 (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(optional) I think the lead could be a little more to the point somehow. Maybe a statement (assuming a reference is available) that A&M is unique/unusual in having such a large set of slang-words. I don't have specific wording to suggest at the moment. Johntex\talk 19:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the lead is better, but I think it can still be improved. This sentence contains a self-reference "While most of the terms on this page..." and I do think it would be better if the very first paragraph can mention that the school is known for its traditions and special vocabulary - something along those lines. Johntex\talk 15:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Sorry, I'm a bit busy but my first thoughts on the article.
  • The opening sentence is not grammatically correct! Perhaps even "The glossary" or "This glossary"... A definite article is needed.
  • This article has been though the chopping block several times. I am not surprised that there are more grammatical mistakes. I fixed this one Oldag07 (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead has no citation (while not required generally, the lead sentences are not revisited so claims should be cited).
  • Will the campus ever be an article of its own?
  • Consistent capitalisation is required (e.g. "the student section " vs "A student, alumnus...")
  • Consistent full stops are required.
  • Consistent citation placement is required (preferably after punctuation, per WP:CITE)
  • Student bonfire or Student Bonfire.
  • "(See Elephant Walk)" - eh? Make a link to it.
  • Didn't realise! Well I can stand "See..." and I can't stand "(stuff in parentheses)" either... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fish - a freshman cadet" citation? I would expect a citation for each of these colloquialisms.
Done, and a good reference too Oldag07 (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "school yells" - is this a common US phrase? Not universal so needs explanation for the non-US-collegiate-expert.
  • Clarified that yells at A&M are different than a normal cheer. Oldag07 (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch out for punctuation in non-fragments in image captions.
  • "Aggie baseball fans. [46]" - avoid spaces before citations, again per WP:CITE.
  • "influential Texas A&M President" - according to whom? Sounds like POV to me.
  • He was incredibly influential considering the fact that he saved the school from being turned into an insane asylum. However, that fact isn't necessary removed "influential" Oldag07 (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some might say he failed without realizing it... — BQZip01 — talk 23:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's it to start with. So it's oppose from me for the time being. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7 dead links report, but there are at least 3 more which return issues. — Dispenser 02:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed a few of them . . . Need to go to bed Oldag07 (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found a replacement URL for a source that you had deleted. Anyway, it was a link to a PDF for a published (paper) report, so the reference would still have been valid (if it had been complete) without the URL. Don't throw out valid source citations just because the URL dies. See WP:DEADREF for official advice on this. --Orlady (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the Association of Former students. note. assuming this review continues to March 1-2, that website will be down for maintenance. http://www.aggienetwork.comOldag07 (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done:*In the intro, does "university's rivals against Texas A&M" refer to the university's athletic rivals or some other kind of rival? -- Orlady (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Generally athletics, but it is not limited to that subject. Ergo, it is proper usage. Would you like it rephrased? — BQZip01 — talk 06:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for sort of explaining. I rephrased the sentence. For some reason, as written, for me it conjured up the possibility of military enemies. --Orlady (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done:*The images on the left side make a mess by forcing some subheadings over toward the right. Boring as it may be, I think all images in this article should go on the right. -- Orlady (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • As much as I like variety, I have to agree on this one; altered accordingly. — BQZip01 — talk 06:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done:*At my default thumbnail width of 250px, some of these images seem unnecessarily large, particularly "Other education" (I'm not convinced that image adds value to the article) and "Senior boots" (good image, but it's big relative to what it's showing). I hesitate to suggest violating WP:MOS, and different image widths might look sloppy, but I wonder if maybe the image of the boots deserves a smaller image width than the others... (This is something to think about and play with. I think that the boot image is possibly the only image that does not risk overlapping a heading if it's on the left, so maybe it would look OK to force a width of 150px or so, and keep it on the left.) -- Orlady (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't mean to sound too harsh, but violating MOS to suit your personal preferences is a bit extreme. I have adjusted some pictures with the "upright" tag to fix some of this (this feature was instituted for just such a use). Does this satisfy your concerns? — BQZip01 — talk 06:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done:*The entry for "Maroon" seems incomplete. It says "Maroon has been used in context in many places." (Which contexts? Where? How? Tell me more!). It continues: "One of the University's traditions, Maroon Out, is an official tradition occurring every year at football games." (Tell me more about Maroon Out; "official tradition" tells me nothing...) -- Orlady (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it myself, by expanding that entry. --Orlady (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMHO, yes (to the first question). This article was broken off of the main Aggie Bonfire article (another featured article). I would hesitate to incorporate such specific information here. That's just my opinion. I could throw in all the terms that cadets use for food, drinks, utensils, etc. at chow, but that would unnecessarily add 60-100 items with minimal description. Mentioning that there are different terms and redirecting to the main page is the best balance I think. — BQZip01 — talk 06:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, a featured list is supposed to be comprehensive, meaning that it "covers the defined scope by including every member of a set, or, in the case of dynamic lists, by not omitting any major component of the subject." The "see also" reference to omitted terms raised a red flag that this list was not comprehensive. I selected the key term "Pots" from that other article and added it to this article. What other significant unique terms are omitted from this list? --Orlady (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need to get a life. . . I think I am done with this page. PeaceOldag07 (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You will be missed. Do come back soon. --Orlady (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed my objections, but I'm still wondering whether the list is truly comprehensive within its defined scope. --Orlady (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you could provide some examples I'd be happy to attempt to fix them, otherwise I'm unsure of what exactly to be looking for. Robhakari (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The student section in athletics events[2][3][4]" - full stop missing. There are many others. If you can't see them then perhaps an independent copyedit is needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed all bad links, and i think i fixed punctuation. I am going back into exile. see ya. Oldag07 (talk) 03:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has this discussion been linked on an Aggie-bashing forum associated with a rival school? That might tend to explain the sudden surge of vandalism to the article...
Corpx, it looks like you're a few weeks too late for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Texas Aggie terms. --Orlady (talk) 05:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the your definition of "neologism" might be pertinent to explain, because I can't see how they are as a whole: "A neologism is a word, term, or phrase that has been recently created (or "coined"), often to apply to new concepts, to synthesize pre-existing concepts, or to make older terminology sound more contemporary.". The limited few neologisms that are present are merely the most recent version of an older concept, such as Student Bonfire, but even that is more than 5 years old. Additionally, the neologism cited in the definition ("e-mail"), has its own article. I too find it quite suspect that you came here from a rival board link and question your motivation regarding such a comment, but I applaud your honesty. As long as the person reviewing this for FA status takes that into account, I see no basic problem with your oppose. — BQZip01 — talk 05:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More