Talk:Missouri University of Science and Technology/Archive 1

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

Who is from UMR?

Any other miners here? I flunked out my sophmore year. '99 I think? crazyeddie 05:36, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

BS CSci, `00 here. Member of the St. Pat's Board and Delta Tau Delta Fraternity. ENDelt260 21:00, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

BS CSci '01, MS CSci '03, working on PhD in CSci (hopefully '08). --Umrguy42 05:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This is NOT the place for gathering. The discussion page is for inproving the article, not for social. There are user tags for this, for the general UMR tag, use {{User umr}}, for generic ones with other stuff, go to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education and find one. MythSearchertalk 07:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Color Seal

There's a color version of the seal in the infobox here: http://web.umr.edu/~libplot/logos/UMR%20Seal%20(Gif).gif (Note: This is no longer the official UMR seal/logo. See below for links to the official UMR graphics.)

But, what would be really nice is to get a good version of this one: http://www.umr.edu/images/gearWhite.jpg

Here's where you can get official UMR identity graphics:

Worm Drive?

Where did that worm drive garbage come from? ~~

I was told that St. Pat was the patron saint of engineers because he "engineered a solution to the snake problem" or some such

I'd heard it that St. Pat is the patron saint of miners (not engineers). UMR was originally the Missouri School of Mines, after all. The worm drive stuff is clearly bogus, but it's entertainingly bogus, so I'll leave it be for now. crazyeddie 22:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Enrollment numbers

Speaking of curious edits.... is there a source for the enrollment numbers posted on 13 December? The previous numbers are still shown at http://www.mst.edu/about/index.html ENDelt260 23:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop these links here for future reference

ENDelt260 21:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Depressing

Is this university really one of the most depressing? I mean, it's fun to take shots at the school, but does anyone have hard numbers to back it up? Jrquinlisk 20:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall one of the many publications that ranks colleges on a number of things slapping a depressing tag on UMR a few years ago. It was based on people calling the campus bland looking or some such horsepuckey. I have no idea why someone thought it was appropriate to list in a "Distinctions" section. 143.192.90.31 23:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The princeton review rated UMR as something like that during the early 2000s i dont remeber the exact year though. Mainly this comes from the fact taht the students that respond to surveys like this are the ones that dont like the school. Those that do like it or are having fun are just too busy to answer it.Sir hugo 14:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Stumbled upon this link today [1] ENDelt260 19:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Male/Female

anyone want to comment on the male/female ratio?

It's 50/50 by weight! :P
Not a funny joke anymoreSir hugo 14:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Bah. Though, admittedly, it's certainly not as funny as "The women on the UMR campus are as attractive as any other group of women" ENDelt260 17:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Although UMR enrolls significantly more men than women this is changing rapidly. I take exception to the comment above concerning a 50/50 by weight male/female ratio. The women on the UMR campus are as attractive as any other group of women and on the whole are quite above average intellectually! I would point out that the women at UMR exceed the men in academic accomplishment. As for the social aspects, my students in Geology & Geophysics commonly told me that the competition from men in engineering was so pitiful (the nerd factor) that the men in science had little trouble meeting and getting dates with the women on campus. I have heard many UMR women comment that, “the odds are good but the goods are odd!”

All joking aside, anyone with a UMR degree has reason to be proud; it is among the finest technical universities in the world! I regretted very much leaving.

Vivat academia!

Vivant professores!

Vivat membrum quodlibet,

Vivat membra quaelibet,

Semper sint in flore.

Jay Gregg 00:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the comment that the female population are as attractive as the rest of the population: I believe they were refering to physical attractiveness. Sorry but personality doesn't count. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.160.57 (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed the top graphic from the "gear" shield to the official UMR "patch" logo. This is UMR's preferred graphic identity.

http://www.umr.edu/comm/marketingresources/graphicidentity.html

Excerpt from that page: "The Historic Emblem is not a “logo” and should not be used as such. The UMR patch or the UMR word mark should be used."

I know that the graphic I replaced is not the Historic Emblem, but it is similar, and it is clear that the UMR patch is the preferred graphic.—Lazytiger 21:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is UMR marketing material? ENDelt260 19:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. (Oops. I just now realized I misread your question; I thought you were asking if the link was to UMR marketing material. See my new comment below.) It's not the most interesting logo I've ever seen, but it does seem to be their preferred identity. If you look at the campus logos at the bottom of this page, www.umsystem.edu, in addition to the campuses' own homepages, you'll see the same logos used as in the Wikipedia articles.—Lazytiger 19:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that the Wikipedia entry for UMR is marketing material. It is information about the school. If anything, several logos and emblems could be presented on the page. Most students and alumni I've talked to hate the green patch. All it does is tie the school even more to St. Pat's celebrations, and not its engineering roots. But the school isn't about St. Pat's, it is about its education, and I can't figure out why the administration keeps promoting this double entendre. In most departments, they still get the emblem, or even the infinity logo printed on their promotional materials. Also, it was much more professional to have a folder with a gold embossed emblem on the front than an ugly green folder to carry to an interview. Cliff Gordon, --Chief1983 00:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed that this article qualifies as marketing material; if anything it specifically should not. Wikipedia should consist of neutral and helpful information about topics. However, I was trying to establish some amount of uniformity among the four UM System campuses' articles (I redid all of the infoboxes last week), including using their "official" logos. But that leads me to another issue: UMR's school colors are supposedly silver and gold (tying into the UM System's "something and gold" colors for each campus). But looking at the UMR website certainly gives the impression that the school colors are green, green, and green. I did not attend UMR, so I am not familiar with all this St. Patrick's Day stuff you speak of, but that would certainly explain the proliferation of green. If you want to go back to the emblem that was previously used in the infobox, I won't argue with you.—Lazytiger 01:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Heh... I bet if you asked 10 random students on the UMR campus what the school colors were, you might not get one that knows they're silver and gold. Not that that's terrible relevant to this conversation... but, it makes me chuckle to think about. I wasn't aware the UM system had a "something and gold" theme. My understanding had been that UMR's colors were silver and gold as reference to the precious metals, and the school's history as a mining school. ENDelt260 18:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
UMR's colors probably were chosen for their metallic properties, and they probably also predate UMKC and UMSL. But after establishing black and gold at MU and silver and gold at UMR, they created a theme by making UMKC blue and gold and UMSL red and gold.—Lazytiger 21:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
The choices of gold and silver are in fact the colors because of the metallic/mining connotations (again, you'd never know it from being on campus or talking to students). The green-and-white block text "UMR" logo was chosen because it's a native vector graphic, which makes it scale without pixellating the way the gear logo would (since the gear logo is a raster image). Also, the block text logo easily lends itself to monochrome reproduction (particularly for photocopies); the gear logo often turns out poorly when reproduced. Zkissane 04:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

UM System seal

I need someone who graduated from UMR (i.e., knows what the diploma looks like) to answer this: is the UM System seal on the outside cover or on the diploma itself? Any other logos? Is the UM System seal used anywhere on campus at all? Could UMR students even identify it? Just wondering and trying to decide what to do with the infobox. Thanks.—Lazytiger 18:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The UM seal is on the diploma, in fact the diploma looks just like Columbia's. I don't know about UMSL or UMKC, but I would guess it is the same. The seal is used on a campus building I recall. It is used on the UMR flag. The UM System logo with the curved U and M has been used on UMR correspondance. It may be obsolete since I've not seen it for a time. Snafflekid 03:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info. I was pretty sure the diploma is nearly identical, but I didn't actually have confirmation. Basically I'm trying to ascertain whether UMR people are OK with the seal being in the infobox. If it's not something that UMR people associate with their school at all, then perhaps it shouldn't be there. But it sounds like it is, so that's good. Thanks again.—Lazytiger 04:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Eh, it's on every building on campus (or at least was as of 2003) so I doubt very many people mind. Zkissane 04:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Notable? Alumni

Where are we drawing the line here as far as business/engineering. CEO of an international corporation? Yeah, seems pretty obvious. But, I see a manager, an assistant brewmaster, and a "senior" electrical engineer on the list. Do these people really warrant inclusion on the list? ENDelt260 00:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes they do. All you want to do is delete stuff which is not what Wiki stands for!Ejvyas 01:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I've added plenty. I just fail to see some of those listed as "notable". Where's the line drawn on notability for this list? ENDelt260 23:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that the word notable should only imply people who is well known, people that have contributed to the society so much that few can compare with them. And I am pretty sure the if all the Alumni were listed, we will have a humongous page of useless information. I'd say we do not include anyone without a published bio of any sort that is available to the public. MythSearchertalk 03:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree but I also think people should not go on deleting stuffEjvyas 05:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess we could consult the Wikipedia guidelines on the subject.

Several articles contain lists of people - for instance, an article on a college usually includes a list of alumni. Such lists are never intended to contain everyone (e.g. not all people who ever graduated from the school). Instead, the list should be limited to notable people: those that already have a Wikipedia article or could plausibly have one, per this guideline. Editors who would like to add themselves to such categories are advised to use categories of editors for this purpose, e.g. Category:Wikipedians by alma mater.

So, if they don't meet the Wikipedia notability guideline for people, they don't belong on the list.ENDelt260 22:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I would think these people are definite includes: Havener, Toomey, Fossilman, the Bachelor, Sullivan, Ballard, El-Baz, Akers, Kavandi, Magnus and Forsee. I think these people are "maybes": McHenry, Woodard, Weise, Roberts and Phelps. The others I would say are not notable, and should be removed. Zkissane 15:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I support the removal of most of the alumni listed under the engineering heading. Given the minimal amount of name recognition, much less listed titles, most of these individuals are not "notable", per Wiki guidelines. Perhaps a single line description of the individual's notable contribution would assist in narrowing the list. ChicagoPimp 22:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Notable Alumni list

Keep

  • Gary Havener of Fort Worth, Texas, graduated in 1962, donated $5 million for construction of the Havener Center, at the time the largest single donation from a private source that the university had ever received.
  • John Toomey, graduated in 1949, donated $5 million for the construction of the new mechanical and aerospace engineering complex, Toomey Hall. The largest donation for the construction of an academic building in UMR’s history.
  • Greg "Fossilman" Raymer, 2004 World Series of Poker champion, won $5 million.
  • Aaron Buerge, who received his Bachelor of Science from UMR in 1997, was the second bachelor to appear on the TV show The Bachelor.
Computer
  • Steve Sullivan, 2001 Academy Award winner for visual effects; a principal engineer with George Lucas' Industrial Light and Magic special effects company
Education
Engineering
Scientists
Astronauts
  • Thomas Akers, retired Air Force Col., a veteran of four space flights, holds bachelor's and master's degrees in mathematics from UMR ('73 and '75), and is currently a professor at UMR.
  • Janet Kavandi, whose debut space shuttle flight in June 1999 was the final Mir-shuttle docking, holds a master's degree in chemistry from UMR ('82).
  • Sandra Magnus, who became a NASA astronaut in 1996, holds a bachelor's degree in physics ('86) and a master's degree in electrical engineering ('90) from UMR.
Business

(talk) 23:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Andrewcareaga (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Ted Weise, former president of FedEx, one of the first employees of FedEx (formerly Federal Express) when the company started in the early 1970s, and worked his way up to the position of president. He holds a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering from UMR ('67).[4]
Arts, Film and Literature
  • Lora Roberts, author of the six Liz Sullivan mysteries, holds a bachelor's degree in English from UMR ('71). She credits UMR for helping build a solid foundation from which to launch her writing career.
Journalism

Remove


Consensus? --ENDelt260 20:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Zkissane 03:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree ChicagoPimp 17:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


Well, I suppose a week is enough time to let people voice their approval/disapproval. I trimmed the list. I think leaving the names that were deleted here on the talk page for reference is a good idea. If someone re-adds a name from the list without some sort of justification here, I'd say it would be up for immediate removal. ENDelt260 17:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are havener and toomey on there. The only thing they did was give money. Butler or Carlton, shrenk and all the others are not there. Why keep them?

Who is James Bogan? I think he should be removed. 184.0.192.146 (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Bogan's entry has three reference citations which cover his notability. He was selected among the whole University of Missouri system to win an award for his teaching. —ADavidB 12:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I just reread this article a few years later. If you look at the three references, you'll notice one is his personal page and the other two are broken links (if you follow the link redirect, they are both S&T articles -- not 3rd party sources). If the teaching award is enough to get on this list, then there are other S&T faculty that should be included and *many* more who have publications, awards, fellowships, ect of similiar prestige...what I'm saying is that there really isn't much of an apparent difference between him and any of my other S&T professors.
Per the conversation above, it seems that a good guideline about notability is whether or not they have/could have a wiki page of their own. As far as I can tell, Bogan is no where near that point. I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor (which is why I posed this question in the first place). Perhaps a more experienced wikipedia editor could chime in? 184.0.192.146 (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Bogan's entry could be better sourced, though it does have sources. I've removed the personal page link and updated the others. Sufficient notability for inclusion here is not as stringent as that required for a separate WP article. Again, Bogan was selected among the whole University of Missouri system (not just S&T) and awarded for his teaching. If we have a reliable source identifying other faculty who have received state-wide teaching awards, I'm all for including them. I invite input from other experienced editors as well. —ADavidB 03:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
He is listed right next to the cofounder of Twitter, a television host, the co-discover of the neutrino, astronauts, CEOs of fortune 500 companies, and a Major General in the Army. Those, imho, are notable people. A guy whos name barely shows up in a google search? Not so much. However I suppose the question is whether or not Wikipedia shares my opinion. Someone quoted a wiki guideline above: "Several articles contain lists of people - for instance, an article on a college usually includes a list of alumni....the list should be limited to notable people: those that already have a Wikipedia article or could plausibly have one". Additionally, the same article mentions criteria required for notability: "prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level". Examples included are the Nobel Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, the Fields Medal, the Bancroft Prize, and the Pulitzer Prize for History. A UM System award is neither national or international nor *anywhere* near the prestige of any of these awards. Again, I don't claim to know everything -- does what I'm saying seem reasonable? Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) 184.0.192.146 (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Quoting from the first referenced guideline...
  • "entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article" – i.e. importance to Missouri S&T
  • "every entry in any such list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group" – sources are provided
The guideline to which you referred at the end of your post is for determining whether an individual has sufficient notability for their own biographical article on Wikipedia, not for inclusion within a particular school's notable faculty list. The criteria are not the same. —ADavidB 15:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. Wikipedia used to have a guideline that I quoted above where "list should be limited to notable people: those that already have a Wikipedia article or could plausibly have one". It seems however that this guidelines has changed and imo, degrades the quality of those listed. To each their own. Just trying to improve the SNR of the page. :) 184.0.192.146 (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Student Organizations in Student Life section

If Show-Me Anime doesn't rate inclusion, then do Lacrosse and India Assn? And, if those three all do rate inclusion, then what seperates them from the other 100 or so registered student organizations? Personally, I'd lean towards not listing any of them... but, I'm just curious what the consensus is. ENDelt260 21:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You're never going to have a complete list, but it seems that students groups are worthy of mentioning at least in passing. When it comes to Wikipedia, anyone who wants to add their group(s) is free to do so—hopefully in an organized manner. As for the groups that aren't included... who cares? I mean, that's kind of the definition of caring—if you care, add it! If you don't, it just won't exist on Wikipedia. Just my 2 cents.—Lazytiger 03:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I agree. That section is student life, and technically all clubs are. However, my suggestion of what should be included are as follow:
  1. It should be easily attendable. Anyone can just walk in at anytime without cost.
  2. It should be on campus. (thus following the first point)
  3. Weekly to monthly, regular meetings. (So you do not miss one meeting and have to wait for 8 weeks for another, I do not consider that student Life)
  4. Organized. I know there are students that regularly watch TV and everybody can do so on campus (thus not countering the first few points.) However, it is not from a campus organization and thus should not be included.
  5. Someone have to be interested in it enough to add it here. If it is a regular student life, then someone who attend or at least knew its existence will add it. If not, someone else will at some point later.
I would say if these criteria are not met, then it should not be considered student life. This is at least more constructive than people who call a club they do not attend meaningless and keep vandalizing pages by deleting them without actual reasoning process. MythSearcher 06:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I wish people do not delete stuff without discussion!!!Ejvyas 05:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


I think a better idea would be to have a section like this. I'm not much of a writer, though... so, I certainly won't be the one to construct it. ENDelt260 16:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Paragraphs of general information rather than some sort of bulleted list gives a much better impression of student life, allowing for explanation of various levels of (un)meaningful organizations. I won't be the one to construct it either, though, because UMR isn't my alma mater!—Lazytiger 18:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
This seems to be a better alternative then some vandalizer deleting stuff. BTW, I am just an alumni, not current member(technically, all students and staff are member of some clubs, that jerk claiming the club only have 5 members is actually one too, if he is a student or staff and was one if he is an alumni.) MythSearcher 20:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree. I feel those that stuff is very tough to maintain. Only those organizations that are interested in posting should be allowed to post. Ejvyas 01:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
General paragraphs describing student life are more difficult to maintain than an ever-growing list of randomly selected student orgs? ENDelt260 16:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I also strongly believe people should not go on deleting random stuff which has been proved and composed by others and without any discussion. I have never seen a Wiki where any kind of info is considered bad!! The more you add the better it is! Ejvyas 13:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


I'm not some random Vandal.... I am an Alum of UMR. Just because you are a member doesn't mean it should be on Wiki. I am not nor was not a member of that club. The way it is now giving a number and link to ALL the clubs provides a nice overall picture of campus, just not some nerds getting together on friday to watch cartoons. Bstallard 22:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You action is exactly some random vandal. Like I've said, if you want to provide an overall picture, than add stuff in yourself, not delete other people's work on trying to provide more info because obviously even if you create a whole list, you are not going to be able to make a fair description on that club. I have stated in the above that the link method seems to be a better alternative, however, it is not helping people to actually understand what if going on on campus. At least I do not want to go through the supremely long list to find anything. A link to this page might be better. And any regular meeting that is not included should have a sperate link. If I remember right, there is a page showing functions held each Also, if you are an Alum of UMR, and after 1991, you were a member. If does not matter if you joined the club or not, ALL students are members by default. This is the way this kind of club used to enable everyone walk in for free. You ignorancy and lack of knowledge does not change that fact. And, wiki should provide that kind of info, most of those people you call nerds actually have more life than drinking lots of beer in parties that serves no purpose or locking one's self in a room playing computer games. Be nice to nerds, he might become your boss. And BTW, you just place your judgement on something obviously you have no idea on and you have no interest in understanding, that is just totally wrong. MythSearcher 08:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with MythSearcher. You just can't delete some stuff that has been added and aged upon since a long time. It makes no sense. You can create a talk page and then decide whether to keep or delete it but deleting such random stuff just amounts to a vandal on Wikipedia. ejvyas 08:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Having graduated recently, I'm curious on what is happening on the student life section. Some mention of the new orginization pantings might be nice. The Anime Club (which spawned this argument) has painted a spot on it. Most of the spots are covered with Greek Life. It shows an interesting cross section of UMR Student life IMO. Vexrm 21:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Why was the expand section tag removed? ENDelt260 19:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been replaced. ENDelt260 20:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no second campus newspaper listed on the mst.edu website. This was posted for a while without a citation, but the "second newspaper" was really just a bunch of STUCO members trying to stick it to the present paper. The official student newspaper has been on campus since 1915. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FormerEIC (talk • contribs) 01:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Missouri S&T

Well, it's official. The new name takes effect January 1. I made two new pages Missouri S&T and Missouri University of Science and Technology. At present they both just redirect here. I'm assuming that's the way it should stay until January 1, when one of those two articles will become THE article. ENDelt260 16:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

ENDelt260, thanks for starting the entries. Over the coming months, I hope to provide the new graphic identity to expand the new entries (as we develop the graphics). I welcome your assistance! Andrewcareaga 18:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well Andy, it appears my first instinct was correct... leaving the other pages as redirects to this one, then moving the article to the new name when it's effective is the right plan. There were various discussions on the topic on an AfD page and other talk pages which have since been blanked and redirected making the history somewhat hard to follow along. ENDelt260 17:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Currently the page is moved BEFORE the name takes effect, it is only 5 days, but yet, it sounds strange... MythSearchertalk 18:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
It is strange that whoever moved the page didn't change any of the content reflecting the name change. But, I imagine the change was catalyzed because they've already changed over their website, even though the name change isn't official until Jan. 1. I deleted the UMR dablink at the top but I didn't touch anything else because that would snowball into making all the changes necessary for the new name.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 20:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

2007 Terrorist Scare

Does this really warrant a section on the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ENDelt260 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

I don't think so. It was in the news for a short time, but now it is not that important.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.43.246.133 (talk • contribs) 03:38, April 13, 2007 (UTC)

Mine either. Also that news is not that important and also a false alarm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasikiran 10 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Academics

There should be a section on academics, for instance what degrees, and what majors the school offers. --WhiteDragon 13:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear Reactor

There should be some mention of the school's nuclear reactor. http://www.nuc.mst.edu/reactor/reactor.html --WhiteDragon 13:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

St. Pat's 100th Anniversary

I was just wondering about including the fact in the section on St. Pat's that 2008 will be the 100th Annual - that would be (IMO) a noteworthy achievement in and of itself, tradition-wise. --Umrguy42 20:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"The final event of St. Pat's week is a Saturday morning parade on Pine Street..." The parade is always the Saturday before St. Pat's? Is that so? I guess I never paid attention. So the 100th parade in 2008 will actually be on March 15th? Seems silly, somehow.

Not always. It just fell that way this year. ENDelt260 21:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. It depends on what day of the week the 17th falls. I don't happen to know the exact system they use, but I would say if the 17th is at least Sun-Wed, then it's usually before. If it's Fri/Sat, it's after (or on). I have no idea about Thurs. But it's always on the Saturday at the end of the week. --Umrguy42 20:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The Winter 2007 edition of UMR Magazine features St. Pat's 100th and the university has created a blog (called the Best Ever Blog) to promote the 100th. Andrewcareaga (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox address

On the front page of www.umr.edu, on the bottom of the page the address is listed as follows:

University of Missouri-Rolla · 1870 Miner Circle · Rolla, Missouri 65409 Phone (573) 341-4111 · 1-800-522-0938

If you google "207 parker" +site:umr.edu you can find references buried in the site to that being the office of enrollment management... but, I see no mention of it being the main address of the University. Unless you've got a source that supersedes what the University itself is publishing on their front page as the address, I think it should be left as is.

As for your assertion that mail won't get there w/out 207 parker, that's ridiculous. Hell, you could leave off 1870 Miner Cir... just write "UMR, Rolla MO" on an envelope and it'll show up. It's not like the mailman in Rolla doesn't know where the University is.

ENDelt260 18:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. Fine. I don't care to debate it, but on all the freakin' mail I get from UMR, the return address, *without exception* is 207 Parker. That was all the reason I needed, but if for whatever reason you're unable to accept that simple FACT, then okay, we'll do it your way. The whole thing seems like a completely stupid argument to me, since I was just trying to correct the fucking article in the first place.

This sort of nonsensical bullshit is one more reason I hate Wikipedia, BTW. Every time I see something and correct it, some asshole pops up to complain. You know what? Fuck it. I don't care anymore. This article can go rot.

- Otto42 20:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, otto, I don't know if you just had a bad day or what, but you need to calm down. The offical address of the University is the miners circle one proposed by ENDelt, you probably receive mail from parker because your mail has to do with enrollment or perhaps the campus post office is located there. The University seems to think it will get its mail by listed 1870 miner circle on their website so thats good enough for me. Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to pop in here, 1870 Miner Circle is the address of Parker Hall. *shrugs* You could probably just put UMR Rolla, MO 65409/65401 and it would get there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.151.180.86 (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to Missouri S&T's story about the address: http://printingmail.mst.edu/mailservices/campus_street_address.html. Cs24 (talk) 08:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Greek Life = 25%?

Hey, so I noticed a user modified the Fraternity/Sorority Life section to say that ~25% of the undergrads are in fraternities or sororities. The number sounds reasonable to me, but I wondered if anybody could find any sourcing for that, and if we should include that (since it's such a specific number) in the article. (I did a quick browse through the student life section of MS&T's website, but didn't spot any numbers there.) I didn't necessarily want to add a fact tag, but my opinion would be that sourcing couldn't hurt. --Umrguy42 (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I ran a Google search on "rolla university greek percent" and got a link to

http://studentlife.mst.edu/documents/GRDSUMSP07.doc, the last line of which shows 25.4% of students were Greek for the Fall 2005 semester. The percentage went up then down a few points in later semesters, though the "approximately 25%" statistic is supported. I'll add the source to the article. —Adavidb 08:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice work!-Grey Wanderer | Talk 18:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Logo change?

What was the motivation? Is there an established policy on wikipedia of preferring .svg to other image file formats? ENDelt260 (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Logos are ideally vector images such as .svg. see Wikipedia:Image use policy#Format. Grey Wanderer | Talk 20:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Gracias. ENDelt260 (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:University of Missouri seal bw.svg

The image Image:University of Missouri seal bw.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Article needs update

I understand that this article was written when the university is UMR, and it was updated later. But most of the links in the references still point to either UMR or are broken. We need to get together to improve this article. - Sasikiran (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This effort proved easier than I thought it might be. The archives section of the news.mst.edu site was fairly easy to search, and some Google searches found current info for some broken external links. I think all the links are up-to-date now. —ADavidB 03:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they are upto date. You did a great job - Sasikiran (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Source for history info

The school is surprisingly lame about its history on its website. Here's a really good source for information about the school which has a colorful past.Americasroof (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Americasroof: In preparation for its 150th anniversary, the university is in the process of preparing a new history book. It is being written by Dr. Larry Gragg, a professor emeritus of history at Missouri S&T. Here's additional background on that project: http://magazine.mst.edu/2015/11/history-in-the-making-larry-gragg-on-chronicling-the-st-story/ Andrewcareaga (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Photo requests

This article really needs photos of the Chancellors Building and the Rolla Building. Thanks!Americasroof (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I have a photo of the Rolla Building that may be of sufficient quality, and will see about getting it uploaded. —ADavidB 19:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
A Rolla Building photo is uploaded and now included in this article.—ADavidB 22:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much! It's a nice photo!Americasroof (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Missouri University of Science and Technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 23:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Missouri University of Science and Technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Curtis Laws Wilson Library entry

The entry for Curtis Laws Wilson Library contains an outdated reference to KMST. The station is now operated by the University of Missouri-St. Louis, a change that took effect in June 2017 (see http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/st-louis-public-radio-assume-operations-kmst#stream/0). The station is no longer active on the Missouri S&T campus or in the Curtis Laws Wilson Library. I suggest this reference be removed. (By way of disclosure, I am an employee of Missouri S&T.) Andrewcareaga (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Academics entry

Editors might want to consider updating the rankings listed in the Academics section. Here are links to some of the most recent (2018) U.S. News & World Report rankings for Missouri S&T:

No. 89 graduate engineering programs (see https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-engineering-schools/missouri-university-of-science-technology-02095)

No. 61 undergraduate engineering programs among doctoral-granting universities (see https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/engineering-doctorate)

Highly ranked online graduate programs in computer information technology, business (non-MBA) and engineering (see https://www.usnews.com/education/online-education/missouri-university-of-science--technology-178411 for complete list of online graduate program rankings)

The U.S. News & World Report overview of Missouri S&T includes links to these and other rankings: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/missouri-university-science-2517

(Disclosure: I am an employee of Missouri S&T.)

Andrewcareaga (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Andrewcareaga, I just saw your post here. I've been updating several Missouri S&T sections, so I'll add this to my to-do list. Jmnbqb (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Missouri University of Science and Technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

FLC nomination review

Hello all,

There is a list associated with this page that is currently undergoing a Featured List Candidate nomination, List of Missouri University of Science and Technology alumni, and it could use additional reviews. It's been listed for awhile, so I would appreciate if it could get some extra reviews and help promote it to featured status.

Thanks, Jmnbqb (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Article move to Missouri S&T

It seems to me that this article should be located at Missouri S&T University. The school branding almost always uses the S&T before and more often than the full name. Thoughts? Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

It's true that many people will refer to the school by some short-handed mention such as "Missouri S&T", "S&T", or "Rolla", but I don't think "Missouri S&T University" would be a proper article title since the full notation of it (Missouri Science and Technology University) is never mentioned in naming. I believe the current article title is best since there's no consensus on any short-handed mention of the school. Many people will differ between calling the school "S&T" and "Missouri S&T" in naming, while many alumni and locals will still refer to the school as simply "Rolla" back when it was UMR (University of Missouri–Rolla). Jmnbqb (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Removal of paragraph on TKE chapter

A fully sourced five-sentence paragraph about the university's TKE chapter had long been present (for over a year) within the Student life section of the article. It was recently removed by an IP editor and I restored it, noting its sourced content. Another editor has removed the paragraph again, claiming it was about a "non-notable student organization". WP's notability guidelines apply to separate articles, not content within articles. Verifiable coverage by reliable sources is what applies to article content. The removed text identified the chapter as being recognized among the top internationally by the fraternity. Other campus fraternity chapters may lack such published information about them, though that has no bearing on this one. (I have never been a member of TKE, in case that matters to anyone, nor do I personally know anyone who has.) —ADavidB 05:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Exactly why do we need or want an entire section (albeit a short one) about one specific student organization? ElKevbo (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd expect it was done for the same reason there are "entire sections" on eleven student engineering projects in the article. If its sub-sub-section status is offensive, I'd agree with not having a section heading for the paragraph. —ADavidB 14:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

New $300 million gift to Missouri S&T

Hello,

I wanted to make sure the editors were aware of this $300 million gift to Missouri S&T, which is the largest single gift to any university in Missouri, public or private. https://news.mst.edu/2020/10/missouri-st-receives-300-million-gift-from-june-and-fred-kummer/

Plenty of external news sites carried this news.

The editors might also want to consider adding the donor, Fred S. Kummer, a 1955 civil engineering graduate, to the list of prominent alumni.

Thanks, Andrewcareaga (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Andrew Careaga Missouri S&T marketing and communications

Military Miners

I want to add a section under History about the involvement of students and faculty in military service. This will include WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and other conflicts. CarricoHayden08 (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

As long as you cite reliable sources on the published aspects of such involvement, from a neutral point of view, I don't foresee problems with such a section, though simply listing names and service periods would likely not meet what's considered enough notability for inclusion. —ADavidB 17:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Kummer Design Center

I am going to be adding some basic information about the Kummer Design Center. In the future I plan to move the location of the design teams on the page so that they appear next to the Kummer Design Center. MikeR97 (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I am going to be adding some information on when the Kummer Design Center first opened and about the expansion. TylerS1706. (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Additions

I am going to be adding information on design teams as well as moving the ones currently on the page underneath the Kumar Design Center. I will also be adding information on buildings on Campus. TylerS1706. (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

As you have a conflict of interest with this subject, I strongly recommend that you propose or request edits here in Talk instead of making them directly. ElKevbo (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Kummer Design Center Additions

I have already added some information about the design Center. I will be going back through and cleaning up what I written and what others have written about the phisical builing, not the design teams that use it. I will be adding information about the donors, the recent expansion, and who the design center was utilized during Covid. MikeR97 (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Links

For proper citation. Each sentence should have a link. I am going to go back through my section and link every sentence. MikeR97 (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Missouri_University_of_Science_and_Technology/Archive_1&oldid=1172436133"