Talk:University of Tennessee/Archive 1

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

Naming[edit]

Why is the main University of Alabama simply at University of Alabama, while this does not get to be at University of Tennessee? Shouldn't we have a uniform standard on this? john k 06:33, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Renaming & Redirection Explanation[edit]

Over the past two days, I've progressively undertaken an effort to rename and redirect pages associated with the UT system to reflect correct nomenclature as defined by the university itself. It's for that reason that:

Feel free to follow up behind me and make sure I've not goofed. Thanks. - Basileus 22:27, 6 December 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to person[edit]

Question: What is the purpose of the reference to Justin Bailey in the Timber pass line? Avery W. Krouse 03:02, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Poll on University Naming Conventions[edit]

A new survey has been created to assess consensus with respect to university naming conventions, specifically regarding the usage of terms like "University of Texas" vs. "University of Texas at Austin". The poll addresses this issue both in the specific case of the "University of Maryland" and proposes an amendment to Wikipedia:Naming conventions which could impact a large number of additional pages, including this one. Dragons flight 17:45, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Go Vols!whicky1978 16:53, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Deletion[edit]

I have deleted the gratuitous shot at parting UT offensive coordinator Randy Sanders TKE {{subst:undated|19:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vol User Box Template[edit]

This user attends or attended the University of Tennessee.

Folks,

Please freely use the box I just made. Go Vols!--Zereshk 10:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clones[edit]

Do you all think we need some info on all the cows they have cloned on the ag campus? That seems big. cows BDSIII 19:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Alumni[edit]

I have re-added Gene Wojciechowski to the notable alumni section. Woody Paige is included on this list (as he should be) and Wojciechowski is generally considered a more respected sports writer than Paige. Wojciechowski even walked on to the UT football team. --cougs2000 12:24, 18 May 2006

  • Paige never graduated... should he be included?CJC47 18:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Alumni" refers to all former students, regardless of whether or not they received a degree. --Cougs2000 20:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campuses of the University[edit]

I've changed the opening paragraph of the article. If we take "UT" to mean UTK and not the UT System, then UT Martin and UTC are not a part of UT. Chattanooga and UT Martin are primary campuses of the UT System, just like UTK. To include those campuses in the opening paragraph implies they are branch campuses of UTK. I've left the history section untouched, as I feel it accurately describes the relationship of UTC and UT Martin in the UT System. M-State Moc 01:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit wasn't quite accurate but your point is accurate. There is naturally a bit of confusion when discussing the flagship institution of a state system as the terminology is usually not very clear. UT is not the only institution/article with this issue. We could probably do with examining the entire article to see if we can do a better job making this distinction more clear. --ElKevbo 03:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It begs the question whether the article should reflect the campus or the university system, with a separate article for only information on the knoxville campus. -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I certainly don't blame anyone for the confusion. It seems that it's only been in the last few years that the UT system itself has really been trying to iron out this distinction, at least with their web presence (tennessee.edu). --ElKevbo 06:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I took 'it' to mean UT. If 'it' meant 'the UT system', then it was accurate as was. Your edit to clarify the ambiguous pronoun helps. I'm not entirely convinced that line belongs in the opening paragraph of the article (since the article is about the UT flagship, not the system), but I won't touch it further. The confusion is gone, so I'm done. Thanks. M-State Moc 21:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're definitely right: the pronoun "it" was unclear and confusing. It was a good catch. --ElKevbo 22:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greek controversy[edit]

Can those who have a strong opinion on the "Greek controversy" section, particularly those who would like it deleted, please speak up and engage in dialog? I can't speak for other editors but I don't necessarily object to modifying or even removing the section if there are good reasons to do so. However, simply deleting it altogether with no discussion or even a good edit summary is an inadvisable course of action and likely to lead to immediate reversions (it appears suspiciously like vandalism or even censorship to delete sourced material without any discussion). I could definitely understand an argument that the material is old or places undue weight on these incidents but no one has made any arguments. --ElKevbo 17:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not a member of any Greek organization, or even a supporter, but I think the article would be better off if the section were deleted. I'm not saying that these incidents are false or overemphasized, but it just seems unnecessary in the article. A quick cursory glance at comparable articles on major state universities reveals that their sections on Greek life don't include these types of incidents, although UT is definitely not the only university with these problems. There are many other subjects pertaining to the University that are more important than Greek controversy, yet aren't covered or mentioned. Sully 18:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:UT System Logo.jpg[edit]

Image:UT System Logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updating campus changes[edit]

the university of tennessee campus is underground rapid changes,,,,,,,,,,however some one continues to delete the updates,,,,,good1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treymcneil (talk • contribs) 03:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not a conspiracy, Treymcneil. I see three basic problems that have led to deletion of your additions. First, the images you are adding lack needed copyright permissions. (In some instances, you are replacing images that have appropriate permissions.) Images such as these are deleted unless appropriate documentation of copyright permission is provided. Second, details about the current construction situation on campus are undoubtedly of current interest to students and faculty, but may not be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article about the institution. Third, there are numerous spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors in your contributions. --Orlady 04:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really ive never noticed any numerous spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors in wikipedia contributions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.59.70.2 (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not believe the historical photo of "The Hill" is an 18th Century photo. Those buildings did not exist in the 18th Century - could the person who posted it meant "1800s" (19th Century)? --Baxterguy (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is the only explanation I can conceive. I've updated the description page thusly. -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory Number of Fraternity Houses[edit]

The "Greek Life" section states "Fifteen of these fraternities currently have on-campus fraternity houses" while the "Fraternities" section states "Sixteen campus fraternities have their own houses on campus." Fifteen does not equal sixteen, but I don't know which (if either) are right. Would someone more knowledgeable mind cleaning that up? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.190.7 (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox[edit]

I made a navigation box for UT pages (similar to other universities), but I'm not sure how to implement it. If someone wants to insert it into the various pages, or find a way to make it its own page (?) that would be great. 216.96.163.43 (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template has been implimented at {{University of Tennessee, Knoxville}}, and I'm sure we'll slowly add it to the appropriate articles. Nice job! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy of Athletics Section[edit]

This is an exact copy of the Wikipedia article "Tennessee Volunteers and should be removed from the page of the University of Tennessee.

I second this. The Tennessee Volunteers article belongs to the Tennessee Volunteers page and not to the University of Tennessee. Although UT has a strong athletic tradition, the information on the main page has clearly been posted by passionate UT fans who are anything but partial, and this borders on bias.

Anyone up for actually discussing this? When the protection expires, I hope we can agree to something here. Would it be against regulations to simply wipe the athletics section and just leave the hyperlink to the Tennessee Volunteers article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.235.131 (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you don't want to just remove everything. While it may seem unusual, there's nothing really wrong with having some duplicate material between articles. Not ideal, certainly, but better than just a link. Ideally, the link and a master summary should be provided. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 16:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this page censored?[edit]

Who is responsible for this? I wanted to change the rankings information after reading that last post, and yes, the article from which that information about Top 40 was drawn is three years old and not accurate. And yes, Tennessee is ranked 52nd and 118th, respectively, by US News. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.249.14 (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not censored (see WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored). It is protected due to disruption by other users. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 03:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can provide the bibliographic information I'll make the edits to correct this information. I was looking for the information earlier today but got pulled away from the computer. --ElKevbo (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/national-top-public UT as #52 among public schools

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/items/3530 UT as #118 among all national Universities

Also, why is everyone so averse to allowing a section to be added about the current administration crisis? I'm new to Wikipedia but I want to participate actively in these debates and get good information posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zubeneshamali (talk • contribs) 17:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but everything I've read has indicated Petersen's going out in good standing. Only problem seems to be he was focused too much on growth and not enough on fiscal restraint. Jan Simek appears ready and mostly willing to step in as interim president, so what is this "administration crisis" you are referring to, and why does it deserve a mention in the article? As big as the article is already, it needs to focus on the big picture items. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. Petersen narrowly escaped a vote of no-confidence last Spring, his wife's behavior required the Vice President of the Board of Regents to issue what amounted to a restraining order against her after she flipped out on a fellow member of the Alliance of Women Philanthropists at UT and was banned from contact with all staff, etc. until Petersen issued a master plan for good behavior, and he fired the last Chancellor after a fight over campus control and it was announced as a resignation... hundreds of faculty who hated Petersen turned out for the guy's fairwell reception in a snub to the President (it's one of those common knowledge things that can't be sourced or documented). There are some very rotten things going on at UT that need to be aired out:
http://www.govolsxtra.com/news/2008/nov/25/incident-mars-social-event/ http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/feb/19/petersen-my-choice-leave-ut-president/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.232.4 (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have there been no problems with administrations in the past? My point is, the University of Tennessee has been in existence for over two hundred years! What makes this series of events so noteworthy on an article that is designed to cover the university as a whole? There is a real problem on Wikipedia with regards to the obsessive detailing of everything "current event"-related. Most topic matters have a much longer history than the two-to-five-years many seem to indicate. I see no reason to mention anything regarding the president and admin staff other than to name who is currently serving. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 19:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I can appreciate that logic. But yes, before Petersen the President was fired for abusing the private jet and buying like $50,000 worth of flowers for "friends." Let's talk about POV, then. Articles like the University of Alabama's "The Machine," detailing the horrors of fraternity abuse of social life there can't really be sourced because they say things like "many people have alleged" or "multiple accusations..." yet you all still allow them to stay up. You took down the "Struggle with Diversity" thing that was put up recently which yeah, was over the top, but was making a good point. At the UT there is a huge problem with social divisions among the student body between those in Greek organizations and those that aren't. Let's make room for a discussion of that, if on a separate page if necessary.
Also, can you please change the rankings? It looks like you have some sources waiting for you to look at: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.251.27 (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a saying here at Wiki, which may not make sense to most outside viewers: just because one article does it, doesn't make it right. You have to realise that with the vast numbers of articles we have, many many different editors help maintain them. UA's coverage of fraternal issues is quite likely excessive, but as far as I recall, I've never set foot over there. Articles aren't intended for current-affairs type coverage, though the fact that such material can be included (if appropriate) is a plus. As for the rankings, I'll try to get those updated over the next few days with the links that have been provided. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change this! The sources cited are UT's own website and they are OLD! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.237.191 (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adjustments[edit]

I took it upon myself to adjust the structure of the article, no vandalism, just to put the Athletics and Traditions sections together and to add some information that was relevant to student life and covers two of the most regular student activity centers on campus, the Pedestrian Mall and the TRECS. These are two aspects of student life that in a large way define the student body and give the school its character during football season and beyond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.187.80 (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the "flagship" status of a university can be presented as objective fact[edit]

There is currently an RfC on this question at Talk:University of Maine#Flagship RFC. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

Wow, this is hugely lacking in citations for some pretty major claims. I'll start poking around at it, but for the time being I just tagged the needed sections and put up a banner. Hopefully I can get some attention to this problem and get a little assistance! nf utvol (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Travel+Leisure[edit]

Tennessee was listed by Travel+Leisure as one of the "ugliest" campuses in the country. That was deleted from the article. The reason given was that, although it was well sourced, the removing editor thought it was "out of touch" and overly subjective, and apparently didn't agree with the magazine's assessment. As near as I can tell, none of those are reasons to keep out a well-sourced statement from a well-regarded source. There are lots of subjective judgments in the "ratings" section of the article. Seems to me that this material helps put in context other statements about how the university is making changes to the campus to make it more attractive. I think it should be restored. Banks Irk (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, but I do stand by my reasoning, with the addition that I feel it presents WP:UNDUE weight within the article. I am, of course, happy to hear what other editors think. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The entirety of the methodology behind this list: "We consulted the Princeton Review, Unigo.com, and other forums where students hotly debate all aspects of campus life." Unless there is additional evidence supporting the noteworthiness of this list, particularly other reliable sources or experts who have used or cited it, it's undue weight to even mention it in a legitimate encyclopedia article.
There are probably other rankings in this and other similar articles that are similarly weak so please feel free to remove or discuss them, too. ElKevbo (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded at the discussion ElKevbo started at Wikipedia_talk:UNI#Travel_and_Leisure_rankings_of_U.S._campuses. Thanks for starting that discussion. Banks Irk (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Note that the logo will be changed effective 1 Jan 2015.

See announcement--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Major removal of content largely uncited[edit]

On August 4, a lot of content was removed because it was not properly cited. However, a lot of it read as reasonable content. If any regular editors working on this article think any of that removed content is useful, please take some time to find references and restore as much as you think is important to include in this article. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on University of Tennessee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/new_logo_identity_and_uniforms_for_university_of_tennessee_athletics_by_nike.php#.WCfjMPkrKyI

The "Power T" logo that Tennessee is now using has changed from the one shown in this article. It is somewhat thinner, with a shorter cross bar. The article above shows the differences from the old to new logo.

The new Power T is now being used universally as the official logo of the school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillVol (talk • contribs) 21:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be completely blunt, I can only barely tell the difference between the two. I hand-made File:UT Knoxville logo 2015.svg and File:UT Volunteers logo.svg based on visual guidelines at http://brand.utk.edu/logos/basics/, and unless the university decides to provide very specific measurements and instructions, or decides to release an SVG graphic for us to use, I don't feel like trying to match whatever nuanced changes they've made. It's simply too difficult without more to go on, and it's so similar as to be inconsequential. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's easy to see the difference between the two. Nike has invested millions in the change. Since you can't tell the difference anyhow, would it be any problem for me to upload the newer version?BillVol (talk) 06:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you do it as an SVG? That is the preferred format for something like this. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SVG? I have no idea what that is. From what I've seen, the logos uploaded to Wiki have been low resolution versions.BillVol (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – IMO, the website listed above is not a reliable site. I've compared File:UT Volunteers logo.svg with this image and the current version we have is actually a bit smaller than the external link. I see no difference in them and believe the current versions on Wikipedia are correct. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 07:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I had to completely eyeball it, since there was no supporting documentation I could find, anywhere. If you ever run across anything, let me know and I'll be happy to get both images up to spec. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1840?[edit]

The article could be improved by indicating when the East Tennessee College became a University? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

Replace the old logo currently on the page with the new university logo. [1] 160.36.165.214 (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Working on an SVG replacement now. Will update later. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I've created the SVG file File:UT Knoxville logo 2015.svg. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Tennessee/Archive_1&oldid=1172586322"