Talk:University of North Texas

Inclusion of former names in infobox

Wmtribe2015 recently added this institution's former names in the infobox using the parameter explicitly created for that purpose. Jianghaizhi reverted that addition because "[t]his info has already been added in main text. Not necessary to add this info in this location." I readded the names; explaining that "yes, there is often duplication between the infobox and article text and that's okay." Jianghaizhi again removed this information, this time saying that "No need to do this. This will occupy a large area of the infobox and significantly affect the readability."

First, Jianghaizhi has begun an edit war with two different editors without even trying to open a discussion here in Talk and that's not acceptable. Jianghaizhi, it would be collegial if you were to revert your most recent edit. Second, there is the substantive matter of whether this information should be included in the infobox. It is meaningful, important information and there is a longstanding parameter in the infobox which seems to say something important about there being a standing consensus in general for the inclusion of this kind of information. I suspect that the inclusion of line breaks in this specific instance is making the information take up more space on the page than necessary - we should try removing those line breaks to see how that changes things. ElKevbo (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jianghaizhi: Do you plan to just continue edit warring without even attempting to participate in this discussion? This is not your article - you don't get to unilaterally impose your preferred edits without any discussion or interaction with other editors. If you continue this behavior, you will likely be blocked. ElKevbo (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

You have changed the content multiple times to add the former names. Obviously, this war is led by you, but you say it was caused by me? This is ridiculous. In the infobox, which only has very limited space and is used to show the most important information, if you put the very long former name list there, it will significantly affect readability. Jianghaizhi (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@ElKevbo If the former name list is not very long, I agree with you that we can put it in the infobox. But for this specific case, the former name list is too long, while the length is even equal to the half space of the whole remaining content in the infobox. For this case, it is not appropriate to put the former name list there， which will significantly damage the readability. A better way is to put it in the main content. Jianghaizhi (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. If you'd like to propose this be added to the documentation for the University infobox, you're welcome to open a discussion in its Talk page. But I don't think that having one editor disagree about this in one article is sufficient reason to omit this infobox parameter that is used in hundreds or thousands of other articles without issue. ElKevbo (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It's clearly marked that all the fields are optional for the university infobox in Template:Infobox university. Especially, it's better to not include the field when the former name list is too long. If you want to make it an must-included field, you need to change the template. @ElKevbo Jianghaizhi (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I have posted a discussion in Template talk:Infobox university and one of the wikipedia Administrator has agreed that we can remove the former name field if the it is long. Jianghaizhi (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Administrators don't have any more say over article content than other editors. And you didn't provide any context or even mention this article. So you've rushed to once again impose your preferred version of this article even though no more editors have weighed in. ElKevbo (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The original version does not include the former names. They are added by you. Obviously, you personally prefer it. I just recovered it back to the original version. If you want to add the former names, I suggest you to post a poll to includes more opinions other than just your opinion or your friend's. Jianghaizhi (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

It would probably have been good to note there that the query was related to a content dispute. However, please note that saying editors can agree not include an optional field is not the same as saying that one editor can decide to remove a field. It might also be worth considering, for a long list, using Template:Collapsible list, e.g. (if this works on a talk page):

List of former names

• Texas Normal College and Teacher Training Institute (1890–1894)
• North Texas Normal College (1894–1901)
• North Texas State Normal College (1901–1923)
• North Texas State Teachers College (1923–1949)
• North Texas State College (1949–1961)

Robminchin (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Please note that the original version does not include the former names. They are added by one or two editors recently. Obviously, they personally prefer it. I just recovered it back to the original version. Please also note that saying it is an optional field is not the same as saying that it is default to include it. For this case, the original version which has been edited by many editors did not include the former names. Jianghaizhi (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like they were stably present for over fifteen years until less than nine months ago, when they were removed by an IP editor without explanation. There's a strong case that the status quo ante would be to continue with the former names in the infobox. No other editors appear to want them removed. Robminchin (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

For all parties here, I think our efforts would be better spent trying to reach consensus about what would be best for the article rather than edit warring. As a technical note regarding Robminchin's comment, {{Collapsed infobox section begin}} would be the template to use. Sdkb ^talk 03:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The lead reads like an advertisement.

See Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism. The lead should be shortened, and focus on UNT as a campus (i.e. its branches as part of the UNT system, its history, and being a minority-serving institution), not recent developments such as its funding in 2023 or its athletic performance apart from its team name & slogan. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. ElKevbo (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Cleanup update and invitation to collaborate

Just a quick update: I've been working on citation cleanup and restructuring the references. The bibliography is now organized into Annotations, Notes, and References (split into Primary and Secondary), which should make ongoing maintenance easier. I've also been repairing dead links, standardizing citation formatting, and clarifying the distinction between university-issued sources and independent ones.

That said, the article still needs substantial improvement. Some sections remain overly promotional in tone or rely on unsourced claims. The focus also leans heavily on student life and traditions – which is cool – but UNT's looming identity as a large public research institution could be better described — perhaps the article could include (i) examples of academic strengths or ongoings in the college sub-sections or (i) some mention of interesting research.

If you're inclined to contribute, help is very welcome. Improving tone, updating stats, trimming puffery, or expanding academic coverage would all make a difference. It's a woolly mammoth. Let's tame it! — Eurodog (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)