Talk:University of Texas at San Antonio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the University of Texas at San Antonio article.
Article policies
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Universities, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to Universities. For guidelines see the project page and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Cleanup Taskforce article This article is being improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of article quality. It is likely to change frequently until completed. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details.

Cleanup Taskforce page → Edit | Purge

Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce/University of Texas at San Antonio


I am just learning how this works but can someone change the amount of acres. UTSA just bought 125 acres off Hausman and Babcock this is where they are putting additional sports facilities. So now UTSA has 725 acres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justingschiro (talk • contribs) 20:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] More images

Not making promises, but I'm trying to find all my own pictures of campus and the dormitory. Will post if I find them, otherwise, there need to be a few more "image" shots of the campus. --Alex¯Jon 06:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I wanted to use the official, nice looking UTSA seal for the logo of our school in the upper right hand corner. This is how the other school's have their logo. I e-mailed UTSA Communications, the people that deal with allowing us to use the seal, and they said no. The UT wiki page when you click on their seal, says it's under fair use. I can't find an image of the UTSA seal anywhere, so if anybody can get permission or find it to use, I think that would be cool to have up there.Csyberblue 23:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I could probably scan an image of an award I received that has the UTSA logo. The only problem is that the lines are all gold, and are not the UTSA color-scheme used in official documents. I cannot find anything that we can use on google or any UTSA website. will381796 02:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • According to http://www.utsa.edu/identity/logos/seal.cfm the seal is used for "official" purposes only and final authority rests with the President's Office. I agree that it would look more professional to have the seal. It gives the school a more prestigious appearance. Longhornsguy07 23:18, 08 June 2007

I think it would be great if we could get an article and some pictures for each of the colleges on campus (business, liberal arts, etc.) When people type in "UTSA College of Engineering", the wikipedia article is like the 3rd result in google. I'm also trying to get a UTSA page in Spanish, but if someone wants to get it started or add onto it, that would be really good too. 66.234.174.48 06:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect University of Texas to University of Texas System

Hi, there is a ongoing debate about redirecting University of Texas to University of Texas System at talk: University of Texas at Austin. If you are interested, please feel free to join. RockiRock 20:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Differentiate UTSA 1604 & Downtown

Yes, it is ultimately the same school. Enrollment is separate, and there is a lot of information about UTSA Downtown. It has its own history, students, and faculty. If not moving to its own page, at least give it a heading and some more information. Longhornsguy07 23:12, 08 June 2007

  • That works. Its just that administratively they are part of the same university. Students can register and go to class at either campus or both campuses and they would both graduate at the same commencement ceremony on the main campus. A separate heading with more information would be good and if there really is enough information about the downtown campus to warrant a separate article, then maybe that can happen. will381796 16:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Will, let's make a new heading for it, and if the information gets too long, we'll make a separate page. Good suggestion for the page change Longhornsguy. Csyberblue 19:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The History section sounds so familiar...

...because it's copied verbatim from here: http://www.utsa.edu/about/History/ Miss Dark (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ouch, that's not good. I hate it when people do that. I don't have time to change it, but it should be either changed soon, or removed. Agree? Brianreading (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed will381796 (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. (And sorry for not changing it myself, yet; I would if I had time!) Miss Dark (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
As it was all added at once back in 2005, I think it is clearly a cut&paste. I've tried to excise the parts that were offending; please double check what I left. If I get some time this weekend, I'll try to re-write the sections using the utsa page as a source. Unless someone beats me to it... :) Kuru talk 02:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarism Portion of Article

Do we really need the plagiarism part in the article? UTSA said that the article in question was a draft, and would be corrected before it is finalized. Csyberblue (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it shouldn't be noted, but if you can find a source for that, then it should definitely be taken off. Almosthonest06 (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

http://utsa.edu/today/2008/04/honorcode.cfm - article directly from the source

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/03/31/ap-plagiarism-consequence-internet - talks about it being a draft copy, and uses quotes from the actual AP article Csyberblue (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I would be against the removal of any information simply because it shows UTSA in a bad light. The information and facts regarding the incident are verifiable and sourced from multiple sources. The fact is had these claims not been brought to light now, the draft would possibly have been finalized without proper attribution being made. Instead, it would be better for you to add clarification to the section of the article and state that UTSA says it is simply a draft and that attribution will be made with the final version. I also think its placement in the article holds something to be desired. Rather than discuss this in the "History" section, perhaps a new "Controversy" section should be created. will381796 (talk) 10:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Will. Clarification and context (with citations) could be added to the text I added originally, but, at least here in Utah, I've heard multiple people discussing the topic--it was even on the local news--so I don't think it should be deleted completely. Regarding placement, I originally added it to the history section for convenience, but feel free to move it to another section if desired. Thanks! --Eustress (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
We're not trying to get it taken off because "it shows UTSA in a bad light." They are accused and the article in question is in draft. If it were the final copy put into place and it was certainly plagiarized, then yes, it would be notable. It is a draft and UTSA expects it to be empty of plagiarism before it is finalized. It's your sources against ours, info like that shouldn't be put on Wikipedia if it is not set in stone. Almosthonest06 (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
We're not here to evaluate how "bad" a controversy this is, whether or not it is a "real" controversy, etc. That's not our jobs as editors. The fact is: we can verify that this has happened and it is found in multiple sources independent to both schools. Move it to a new section, add clarifications (so long as they're sourced and verifable) but this should not be removed. will381796 (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a matter of encyclopedic content in my opinion. Wikipedia is an encylopedia. It's best to leave small news stories like this to Wikinews, not Wikipedia. The information is not notable enough to be a permanent part of the article, and thus should be moved to the proper project instead of just being deleted. Brianreading (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that notability is what determines whether or not a subject warrants an independent article. Its not a guideline to determine what should be included within an article. Something does not need to be notable to be mentioned in the article of a notable subject. If I'm misinterpreting this guideline then I can go ahead and remove all non-notable facts about UTSA from the article? will381796 (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You're right. I withdraw my previous recommendation. Although, referring to Wikipedia's official policy as per Neutral point of view: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." I would say that an official UTSA press release is a reliable source, and that UTSA itself is a prominent entity in the matter. Therefore, the statement should revised to note that UTSA has made an official stance that they did not plagiarize from BYU, and it should certainly also mention about the Center for Academic Integrity which was the provider of the draft for UTSA, the same as BYU for theirs. I also am wondering if the History section the appropriate place for this information to be placed. It seems to be much more of a "here and now" kind of controversy, and is probably not historically significant enough to be placed in this section. Any ideas about all of this? Thanks! Brianreading (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you on all points. All perspectives should be discussed and its location within the article leaves much to be desired. A separate section would be a good idea. will381796 (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
To add a little bit more information about this topic to us editors, the San Antonio Express-News says ""Probably the paper jumped the gun a little bit," said San Antonio Express News Public Editor Bob Richter."" from here: http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=8722ac15-8260-4304-a6cc-d6b356b8bf9f Csyberblue (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Alumni

  • Okay, this section needs to have some sources citing it. I'm going to tag the entire section and if we don't start seeing some citations, then I'm going to remove names. As it stands now I could add "Sarah Jessica Parker" to the list of alumni and it would be no worse than any of the other names that lack sources. will381796 (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You're completely right. Brianreading (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I removed the section. All future additions to this section, should it be recreated, need fully verifiable citations. Please see WP:SOURCES and WP:VERIFIABLE for more information. will381796 (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Section was added back in and ANOTHER unsourced "alumni" was added. I have removed the entire section again. will381796 (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you to all that found citations for these alumni. This article is now much more credible. I guess the next section to work on is the notable faculty section. lol. will381796 (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)