Talk:Aggie Bonfire/Archive 1

"Permanently discontinued"

This sentence is incorrect. Although bowen's announcement of 2002-02-04 was significant in that it lead to popular support for the off-campus Bonfire, the University has never made a permanent decision, but merely held that "any...change in the status quo regarding the future of Bonfire would be inappropriate while litigation is still on-going" (President Gates, 2003-02-26). (Not that I've held my breath for the lawsuit to end.) DanBishop 09:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Memorial explanation

I think that it would be good to explain the significance of the memorial design elements, but I don't remember well enough. I think that the structures each represent one of the deceased, and placement is significant (but I don't recall if it represents where they came from or where they died).

Also, the memorial link is now redirecting to an unrelated page.

The portals are placed in the directions of the hometowns of the deceased. 70.241.18.202 05:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Memorial Info

I don't have the time to add all the info, but here is the url.

Old Bonfire Pictures

This article could really use some pictures from pre-'99 Bonfire stacks, just so that people will have an idea of the size of thing. Best would be non-burning pictures. Unfortunately in my time at A&M I didn't have a camera and so never got any pictures of it, otherwise I'd put up my own. - MordredKLB 23:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Time of 1999 collapse

There is some debate as to whether stack fell at 2:30 or 2:42am. This is a rather trivial matter over which to have an edit war. I suggest we state that it fell "between approximately 2:30 and 2:42am." - Raetzsch 22:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I was a junior at A&M during this time, and was driving past the Polo Fields (bonfire site) on Texas avenue, which borders the North East edge of campus at approximately 2:35 AM on November 18th. Bonfire was, at that time, still standing, the lights were on and stack work appeared normal. I am unaware of any controversy over the time of the collapse, and while I was not present at the time it fell, the 2:42 time is consistent with my own eye witness accounts, as well as the time I started to hear emergency response (sirens could be heard at my apartment 1.2 miles from site at approximately 2:50 am.) Antennapedia 22:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is there any debate on the time it fell? Source of controversy? BQZip01 22:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If someone wants to revert the changes I made, please just cite a source. BQZip01 23:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The time that is most often cited, 2:42 AM, was the time that the police record began. Nearly instantly after the collapse that time entered the media as the collapse time and was almost never corrected in any source. The school's spokespeople initially quoted the correct collapse time of 2:30AM (approximate of course). http://www.cnn.com/US/9911/18/students.crushed.03/ has one such quote.

72.48.160.6 02:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC) NoAC

UT Bonfire

I am removing the section on the UT Bonfire. I think it is out of place in this article about Aggie Bonfire. If there is interest, the section could be expanded to talk about other school bonfires in general, as I know smaller-scale bonfires are popular at a lot of southern schools around Homecoming. In the meantime, I did add that info to the Hex Rally page because I thought it fit there. I've been debating whether we should have a See Also link to the Hex Rally page anyway, but haven't been able to decide. Comments? Karanacs 18:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur with changes. If anything, it belongs on the Bonfire page, but not here. BQZip01 18:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Tense

Much of this article arbitrarily switches between past and present tense. I know this is a point of contention among Aggies, but some consistency would be nice. DanBishop 03:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations for pots

Does anyone know where we can find a good citation for some of the leadership information? I have cited what I could, but can find nothing for the greenpots, greypots, and the way the roles are handed down. I know it's all true, but we have to be able to verify it. Karanacs 18:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

List of those who died

I would like to remove the list of names of the victims of the collapse. The victims do not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, meaning they will never have articles of their own. This article is not meant to be a memorial to the victims, but to describe the tradition and its history over time. As such, the names of those who have died in any of the accidents (including the 1999 collapse) do not belong. I have checked other articles in wikipedia on similar tragedies, including the World Trade Center bombing, and the names of the victims are not included. We have provided external links to various websites that memorialize the fallen, so people can still get that information if they choose. Comments? Karanacs 16:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a memorial. As tragic as the event was and as much as the victims should be remembered—and I'm sure they will be remembered—it's reasonable to expect more objections to having the list here. However, there is at least one list kept after debate. I'm ambivalent and will accept either decision. →Wordbuilder 19:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The Bonfire website gives a list of the fallen, some of whom have tribute websites. I personally think it's sick that Wikipedia has this rule, but rules are rules. I'll add the the link to the external links section. BlueAg09 (Talk) 22:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Bonfire leadership text

The article on Aggie Bonfire Leadership has been put up for deletion, so I'm going to include the text here for right now so that we'll have it. (And I'm sorry I posted this out of order, but I wanted FA push to be in focus right now).Karanacs 21:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion has been mitigated — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

To safely manage the large number of participants at Aggie Bonfire, a special leadership structure was instituted. Leaders are generally identified by the color of their "pots" (helmets). The various leadership positions are as follows:

Crew chief: Crew chiefs are in charge of each dorm's crew while at Cut, Stack, and in the case of Walton Hall crew chiefs, Load, serving as both instructors and supervisors. With larger dorms, there will be multiple crew chiefs to ensure that there is adequate supervision of the larger crews.

Yellowpot: Yellowpots are the liaison to higher on-site leadership for crews. Each dorm with an adequate number of volunteers will have a yellowpot designated who serves as spokesman for that dorm, as well as manager to the crew chiefs of his/her dorm.

Greenpot: Greenpots are in charge of administrative and financial aspects. These students, are responsible for things such as checking people in at the beginning of the day, managing finances, and dealing with paperwork, but are rarely involved with the physical labor, unless they volunteer for it.

Brownpot: Brownpots are in charge of machinery at Cut and Stack. They are most often seen operating chainsaws and preparing lights at Stack. There are 5 brownpots, usually three from the Corps of Cadets and two representing the civilian, or non-reg, participants. Unofficially, Brownpots have a reputation for causing mischief for the upper leadership.

Greypot: Phased out of use. Originally, the Greypots were known as "climbers" or "swing monkeys", and would climb Centerpole to secure logs during Stack, and ran axe maintenance stations at Cut. Eventually, they were phased out and combined with the Redpots, but were brought back for a short time as a replacement for the Redpots while the Reds debated passing down their lines.

Redpots: Redpots are the leaders of Bonfire. These nine seniors and nine juniors were in charge of Bonfire as a whole, from the design of the structure to ensuring that all participants were following safety precautions while overseeing both Cut and Stack. There was no official written documentation for Bonfire, and all applicable information was passed orally from one year's redpots to the next. Senior redpots were responsible for training the junior redpots in the proper process and procedures for building the next year's Bonfire. The head redpot, who has ultimate authority over Bonfire, is known as Head Stack.

Outhouse Crew/ Orangepots: The Outhouse Crew is in charge of building the orange outhouse thats sits on top of the bonfire stack. The Outhouse Crew is made up of 6 sophomore cadets from The Fightin' Texas Aggie Band. A crewmember is chosen from each of the four band outfits and a head crewmember and grode crewmember are also chosen. The outhouse is built in a secret location before being unveiled in front of the Dixie Chicken on Northgate. From there the outhouse is taken to the bonfire stack where a Redpot rides it to the top as it is lifted by crane.

The leadership roles themselves change each year as they are given, or "passed down", to younger students. The process for determining who gets the responsibility of these roles changes from pot to pot, but ultimately, the candidates are voted on according to who best represents the desired qualities. In the cases of crew chiefs and Yellowpots, the vote is decided within the dorm by the leaders for that year, and candidates are usually chosen from the freshman of that dorm. For the higher positions, such as the Redpots, the candidates are chosen from the pool of crew chiefs and Yellows. The Greenpots are the only non-dorm-specific pots that do not use crew chiefs or Yellowpots as candidates.

FA push

For those who are interested, we're (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Texas A&M) going to push for FA status on the Bonfire page. Any input before we start would be appreciated. Here is my plan:

The lead needs a bit of a rewrite and a good picture.

I think the History section should be next with replant incorporated within it (maybe combine with injuries for a subsection of "controversy"?)

Collapse (doesn't really need a subsection of "Aggie family unites"

Aftermath, continuation, and memorial all seem good in general, but references are needed.

Leadership needs to be done in another way. Given the lack of sources for this subject and informalness of the whole process, this will likely be our most difficult section to improve. I think our purposes might be better served to have a separate stub article cover each of the positions and other details (so we don't have to be too picky on everything) and then put a paragraph about the leadership in the main article.

Overall, we need some sources and some more pictures. I'll see what I can find at the local library and in my personal collection of picts. If anyone is still at A&M, please let us know what you can find or get your hands on. For the sake of simplicity, please use the citation templates for each reference and name ALL of them so we can reuse them throughout the article. Do NOT delete any current references!!! Multiple references for the same sentence/section are encouraged. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

All existing information, except the leadership section, is covered by one of the references for its paragraph. We do need to try to find references that are not the Battalion or the Eagle though. I'm going to order the Aggie Bonfire book from Amazon today and see what I can find in it. Karanacs 18:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I did a search on library.tamu.edu and got these results:

Articles:

• Burka, Paul. The Aggie Bonfire Tragedy. Texas Monthly Apr2000, Vol. 28 Issue 4, p116.
• Burka, Paul. Gig 'em Ray. Texas Monthly May2002, Vol. 30 Issue 5, p9.
• Yardley, Jim. Aggies, Shaken by Accident, Cling to Pride and Tradition. New York Times 11/20/99, Vol. 149 Issue 51712, pA1
• Smith, Jonathan M. The Texas Aggie Bonfire: A Conservative Reading of Regional Narratives, Traditional Practices, and a Paradoxical Place. Annals of the Association of American Geographers Mar2007, Vol. 97 Issue 1, p182-201

Books:

• Tang, Irwin A. The Texas Aggie Bonfire :tradition and tragedy at Texas A&M. 1st ed. Austin, Tex.  : The it works , 2000.

(there is also a "traditions of A&M" book published by A&M) I have access to the full text of the articles, but I can't post the link to them as that would be a copyright violation. However, I guess I can email the articles (they have an email button) to one of you if needed. BlueAg09 (Talk) 18:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can email them, please send them to me and I'll see about incorporating any new info or adding new citations. I'm going to remove my email address tomorrow so I don't get a lot of spam.Karanacs 21:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made some basic changes and added a to do list at the top of the page. I removed the Leadership section and made it its own stub article (finding refs for this section would be a bitch and really didn't explain anything about the Bonfire itself anyway). Like the changes so far? — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

pictures

I think the picture of the 1991 Bonfire is going to be complained about in an FA. There are likely free images available, we just have to find them. Does anyone have a Texags account? Maybe we could ask there. I looked through my pictures of Bonfire a few days ago, and none of them are of the appropriate quality for wikipedia. All you really see is flames, and not the structure itself. Karanacs 21:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the Bonfire board on TexAgs. I don't think there are many pics of previous bonfires. BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not yet seen one that shows the relative size of the structure. If you find one, I'll be happy to replace it, but I think this is defined as fair use. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Halls

[s]Bonfire is not a subject i know much about. however, i do not see a single mention of the world "hall" or "dorm" in the whole article. aren't halls the basic work group on bonfire. [/s] really don't know. I will help with what i can. i am planning on toning down the editing. at last for a semester. good luck to y'all. Oldag07 02:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

that being said, a expanded section on construction would be good tooOldag07 02:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

never mind, i do see dormitories. Oldag07 02:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This coming from a new army Ag with no bonfire experience...<sigh>...just kidding. :-) Seriously though, most of this stuff is pass down lore and was not written down (as noted by people on the Committee that reviewed the collapse). The actual construction is mentioned, but is incorporated where it can be in each section. An additional problem is that it changed form year to year with no notes of what happened. There isn't much written down and not much that can be referenced. I think we are close to our max here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

FA Nomination soon

This article is really close to FA status. I intend to put it up for review before the end of the week. Feel free to chime in and perk it up a bit. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Need some more pictures. Anyone have any? — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I searched Flickr and only found these pics of previous bonfires. They are all copyrighted, though I can request the photographer to switch the license. (Karanacs can do that too ;) BlueAg09 (Talk) 09:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I emailed the Cushing Library a while back to ask them about the copyright status of the Cushing images. I got this response:

I am not a lawyer and thus can't give you a binding answer. However, we have no problem with your using the photographs as fair use or personal use. We don't hold copyright. Our stance is that any copyright issues are the responsibility of the user. Wish I could give you definite answers but that would be out of my area of authority and expertise. So far we have had no problems. Commercial use of them might open up issues but then I would think that depended on what you are using them for. BlueAg09 (Talk) 09:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm impressed you got a response -- they ignored me. Most of the Cushing Bonfire pictures don't list the name of the photographer, so it will be impossible to get permission for them to be relicensed. I saw those Flickr pictures, but I didn't think they were good enough quality for the artiloe -- I'd rather have a picture without people in the foreground. Karanacs 13:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I found this pic, though I think it's a scan or something. It's a nice picture though. BlueAg09 (Talk) 19:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a scan from an official picture from EWalk. When someone pays a photographer to take their picture, does the photographer retain the copyright for a long time or does it revert to the person who bought it? karanacs 21:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It would all depend on whether the two parties agree that the photographs are considered work made for hire. Generally I think they are considered that, so the hiring party will own the copyright. More info BlueAg09 (Talk) 23:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Organization Proposal

How can we best incorporate the information about Cut, Stack, and Push? I see that it's been moved into the 1990s section, but I found more information that refers to it from the 1970s-1980s section. I think we need to have an initial description or definition section that would explain much of what is in the 1990s sections. I would also like to get rid of the separate controversy section and incorporate that back into the article. My proposed outline:

• Definition (include info on cut, stack, push and description of wedding cake design)
• Early years
• Later years (combine 1960s-1990s sections and replant)
• Collapse
  • Aggie family unites
• Aftermath and controversy
• Continuation

Karanacs 19:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem I see with cut, stack, and push, is that they all are more recent additions to Bonfire (not to say they aren't important). On top of that, the wedding cake style is pretty recent too. I see no problem incorporating 1960-1990s and replant, but we desperately need pictures to break up the monotony of all of the text. Other than that, I really don't see much else on which we can improve. I'll likely make those changes tomorrow. I'll see if I can get some bonfire picts from other sources, but most of the ones I have seen are more of the people with bonfire (stack, cut, etc) as mere backdrops for the photos and does not show any particular phase (though I guess we can show more of the human element of Bonfire too. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made some big organizational changes, trying to keep your views in mind too. I've also added more information I found from the Houston Chronicle (their archives are free and online through 1985!). I think a fresh pair of eyes copyediting and tweaking some of the transitions would be very useful. This article has improved a great deal in just a few short days. I'm still waiting for Amazon to deliver the book by Irwin Tang that I delivered, and once I've examined it for any additional useful information I think we'll be about done. Karanacs 18:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know if the current Band Practice Field is the same Duncan Intramural Field where Bonfire used to be held? If so, there's a picture of it at the WikiCommons that we could use. If not, I'll keep looking.Karanacs 18:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No, these are different fields. Duncan Field is behind Duncan Dining Hall. The band field is between Dorm 9 and Dorm 11 and the the Southside Parking Garage. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The changes look good. I say we submit as-is. The last thing I'll do is archive the talk page. Thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's give it until at least Sunday. I want to see if my book comes in Saturday and page through it really quickly to see if there is any other information that might be nice to have. I did some copyediting today, but I think it's going to need at least one or two more read-throughs before it's ready. Karanacs 14:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Extra facts that might be mentioned

Again, i am extremely unknowledgeable of the subject. this is stuff i do know though that i don't believe is in the article:

Ribbon sales to fund memorial. http://www.aggienetwork.com/Media/prelease/bonfire20040305.htm

i guess i didn't emphasize the key points of this article. gates lifted a ban on bonfire merchandise march 5, 2004 to help fun the memorial. probably should be mentiontioned in the memorial section Oldag07 00:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Bonfire Coalition- organization that is trying to bring bonfire back to campus http://stuact.tamu.edu/stuorgs/bcs/ Oldag07 13:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll see if I can find any info on the Bonfire Coalition from outside of A&M. That would probably be good to mention. Karanacs 14:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's another source that talks about lawsuits. It was just published today (Friday). BlueAg09 (Talk) 00:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"Bonfire Coalition" found in this comment does not refer to the organization that builds the off campus bonfire. Bonfire coalition is a school sanctioned organization that exists to try to bring the bonfire back on campus. I am done. see ya in a few months. Oldag07 21:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

comments

Mind you, this is from a NoDak (Minot State University "Beavers") / Michigonian (University of Michigan "Wolverines") (not a male goose: Michigander), whose only knowledge of the Aggies is what I read, and not from a former student....

• The article reads well and has very good citations, but I can't help but wondering if audio might help the article any. Is there any audio of the 1999 game of either band playing? That would be an awesome addition!
• The section labeled "Later years", the second paragraph is somewhat ambiguous with the timeline. I had to re-read the section a couple of times before it dawned on me that the same incident was being talked about. At first it says that a collapse was averted, and then it talks about a collapse and the rebuilding effort. I don't know what, but something might be able to be done with this section....
• "Design change": what does the miscreant cop have to do with a design change? Maybe even an entire section labeled "Sabotage attempts" or something?
• First sentence: Aggie bonfire was.... Was? or Is? Isn't it still going, only now once again without official sponsorship and organization?

Just my opinions after an initial perusal. I can't write prose to save my life, so don't look for anything of this quality coming out of my corner anytime soon, but y'all did / are doing real good - AGAIN - on this Aggie article! I'm almost tempted to see if admissions'll take a disabled 40-year-old AF vet... Keep up the great work!  :-)) - NDCompuGeek 06:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh... My... God... I'm in tears. Quite seriously. I just went to the t.u. link for the 1999 halftime performance. Knowing the background now, this is an intense and, well, just moving video. Great find and insertion, whoever found it and put it in. - NDCompuGeek 02:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"Centerpole" vs. "center pole"

I believe rendering this as two words, instead of one, is correct. However, before I made wholesale changes, I thought I'd mention it here. →Wordbuilder 14:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there is disagreement about this in general. When I googled "Bonfire" and "center pole" I got 690 results; there were 311 for "Bonfire" and "centerpole". However, the top results for the single word were from TAMU sites, the Batt, and the Eagle. I don't prefer one usage over the other, and I think it probably doesn't matter which we use. Karanacs 15:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, done. →Wordbuilder 21:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Barker Link

Howdy User:BQZip01!

It seems the Barker reference is unavailable without a login. Got a better source? Spryde 00:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I just got a new computer (today!!!) and I don't seem to have a problem accessing it, but the link is merely the place to get the DVD from the production company. You can't view it from this link. I, however, possess the video and have it up right now and it is around the 67 minute mark, if that helps. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how this can be resolved. This is sure to be something poked and prodded at. Spryde 00:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There shouldn't be. I can just get rid of the link and the reference should be fine. Will that solve your worries? If not, please let me know. — BQZip01 —' ^talk 00:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The link isn't required for the citation and I get an error message, too. I would just get rid of the link and save the headaches. →Wordbuilder 00:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Consider it gone. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Should we just take out the sentence? We've had several reviewers dislike it so far. I was in the stands and I remember how quiet it was (but I don't remember the baby cry; I was probably crying too hard to notice anything). It might be better to just say that the crowd was also silent and leave it at that. Karanacs 02:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It is clearly audible on the video (from 3rd deck no less) and it shows HOW quiet it truly was. I have NEVER seen a crowd of that size so silent. They didn't seem to like it because it wasn't referenced. It is now. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Student Bonfire

Should we expand the section about Student Bonfire at all? Our latest reviewer would like to see more information there. Part of me thinks the article should remain about the school-sponsored Aggie Bonfire and that we could create a separate article about Student Bonfire, but I think that might confuse non-Aggies. Opinions? Karanacs 13:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Expansion? No. Separate article. Sure, but as I addressed in the FAC review, this is a separate event from the official Bonfire. As such it is just a footnote. If another Student Bonfire article is created, then we can wikilink to it, but a "see also" isn't necessary here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

I ran the script at JohnTex's request and came up with the following (those in bold are my responses):

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]

Lede size is NOT required to be as depicted in the chart at the bottom of WP:LEAD. I tried splitting the second paragraph, but it looked awkward. I'll leave it if this satisfies your problems with it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]

"Years...can be linked if they provide context." In this case, the sole link that fits this description is 1999 and this event was one of the newsmakers of that year and this link provides that context.

• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)

"There may be..." is not an actionable item.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]

fixed a single missing wikilink

• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.

• allege
• might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]

both instances of this term are specified in the article. As stated by the javascript program "This javascript cannot determine if a citation is provided; if all weasel terms are covered by citations, please strike this." Please take that into account when making such future claims...

• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”

This is hardly an actionable item: "Watch for..."

• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

It has...

— BQZip01 — ^talk 18:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Student Bonfire vs Bonfire Coalition

They aren't the same thing. the word "Coalition" as used in the article describes the unsanctioned bonfire, not the student organization fighting to bring it back.

• Student Bonfire= the unrecognized organization responsible for building the unsanctioned bonfire
• Bonfire Coalition= the recognized student organization who is trying to bring the bonfire back to campus.

Oldag07 21:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Contraversy

Before link 15 ... broke a hips. should be ...broke his hip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace keeper II (talk • contribs) 11:42, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

t.u.

I de-wikinked t.u. in the article because:

1. we normally don't link to disambig pages on purpose.
2. we normally don't wikilink inside quotes, and
3. it is better to have an explanation here if the term is really important to the article, we should not send readers off to a disambig page and hope that they sort through all the terms to find what we actually want them to read.

Johntex\^talk 01:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like we have a similar thing going on with "BQ" at the Aggie Band article, which I noticed BQZip01 trying to refine the other day. Granted, it's not in quotes, but it's still a link to a dab page. I suppose it kind of works, but I agree with Johntex that it's really not ideal. -- RG² 01:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I just checked the band article and that term does not seem to be there at this time.

I run into a version of this when I work on college football articles. In theory, articles on Wikipedia are supposed to be accessible to a man in Manhattan and a mother in Moscow. So, I try to make all the terminology accessible. Fortunately, we have Glossary of American football. If I want to use a term that is not there yet, I just add it in and then I wikilink from the article I'm working on.

I think perhaps we should create Glossary of Texas Aggie terms. Then we can use it to define t.u., Bonfire, Hump, Senior boots, elephant walk, etc. BQ is probably not 100% exclusive to A&M, but we could still put it in that article if it is a big deal for A&M. Johntex\^talk 03:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Question on 1999 Bonfire hijinks

I saw the addition about the 1999 Longhorn who hired someone to try to destroy Bonfire in 1999. I guess it (understandably) didn't get a lot of press at the time, which was why I hadn't heard of it. Should this stay in the article, though, since the attempt wasn't actually made (just in planning stages)? There may be a lot of other plans that were scrapped and none of those are mentioned in the article. I've left it in; I was just curious about other people's opinions. Karanacs (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't heard this story either but happened to notice it while searching out other bonfire stories. Reasons I included it were because: 1) Complements the existing Bonfire sabotage paragraph, 2) It is documented and verified by the participant himself, 3)He was already in the process of building the plane and stopped only because of the bonfire tragedy, 4) The idea of a remote controlled bomb flown on an airplane reflects the significance/hatred that some longhorn fans also had with regards to bonfire, and 5) Because Mel Stekoll is a famous and well know Longhorn fan (Orange cheerleader car). Macae (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I wondered who Mel Stekoll is. I lived in Austin and don't remember hearing his name, but I definitely heard about that car! You're right, this is well-verified, I'm just unsure whether it really belongs in the article since the attempt wasn't actually made. Karanacs (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Writing

I did some editing and was surprised at the writing and number of mistakes. Also, there is a lot of repetition. How many times do we need to read that the earliest fires were piles of trash and scrap wood? I'll take a detailed editing pass when I get some time in the next few days. --NameThatWorks (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Fact tags in "Student bonfire" section

It would be best to replace the "citation needed" tags with reference tags before this article goes on the main page. I'm not sure which source covers the information, otherwise I would have done it myself. Also, I think we should all give the article a quick read in order to find and fix any errors we may have missed. BlueAg09 (Talk) 18:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't able to verify that information in the Student Bonfire section before. I think someone who is involved with the project added it. We may want to remove the extra detail. Karanacs (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It was indeed added by someone involved with Student Bonfire (see this talk page). While I do not object in principle, given the situation, I suggest reversion before it is put on the main page. Furthermore, I humbly request that the image that is going to be used on the main page be updated with the cropped version I just uploaded (I can't replace the image, so someone else can do that). Does anyone else have something else they think we should update before we go to the main page? I suggest archiving the discussion before it becomes the Featured Article of the Day. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Last minute concerns

I have some last minute concerns about the article that I would like to see addressed before it goes on the main page:
In the Lead:

1. We should have "For 90 years, Texas A&M students, known as Aggies, built and burned a bonfire on campus each fall." I think the average reader wouldn't know what an "Aggie" is, so defining it here would eliminate any confusion.

In Early years:

1. "Six years later, the school yearbook published a photograph of the event" - Did the yearbook publish the photograph of the 1921 bonfire or did it start publishing a photograph of the event in 1927?
2. "1935, a farmer reported that members of the Corps of Cadets carried off his entire barn as fuel for Bonfire" - It's better to replace "members of the Corps of Cadets" with "students" here - the previous sentence uses "students", and readers may get the idea that the Corps of Cadets was separate then, but it wasn't.
3. "...the undying flame of love that every loyal Aggie carries in his heart for the school;" this was often shorted to "the burning desire to beat the hell out of t.u." - Shouldn't we explain why we use t.u. in a sentence after this one? Only in the lead does it mention that t.u. is a derogatory reference, but it doesn't go any further than that. I don't think a wikilink would fix this problem, per Johntex's discussion above (in the "t.u." section)

That's all I have. The rest of the article reads well. BlueAg09 (Talk) 00:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"the undying flame of love that every loyal Aggie carries in his heart for the school" was never shortened to "the burning desire to beat the hell out of t.u." This phrase originated in 1998 when it was added to the campusologies the freshmen were required to memorize in the Corps. Expanding that later in the text would be a good idea, but just a sentence or two so we don't get off-topic too far.

They published a photo of the 1927 Bonfire. If you can think of a better way to phrase it without getting to wordy, go for it!

The other changes look good. Go for it! Thanks for trying to reach a consensus here first. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for all of your hard work in cleaning up the article! Sorry I haven't been helping; the article made me sick! I came down with a very bad head cold right after I discovered that the article was going to be featured. What else do we need to do (besides archive the talk page, which we can probably wait and do Friday)? Karanacs (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the big thing that would improve the article is more pictures ASAP. I pinged Texags for pictures, but haven't gotten much of a response. I also added a 1928 picture under fair use (I do not know the copyright status, but is the oldest picture of bonfire of which I am aware); you can't possibly repeat this, get another uncopyrighted shot, but it can't be used anywhere else. Again, I am at work, so if someone can call the library and see what we need to do to use some of theirs, that would be great! I think quite a few would fall under fair use, though. I just don't want to do too many of them.

Email: cushing-library@tamu.edu

Phone: (979) 845-1951

I do love the picture on their "Historic Images Collection" page... — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this picture would be ideal and would definitely fall under fair use...someone needs to reduce the image resolution though — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've contacted the Cushing library before (about that picture specifically) and they've repeatedly ignored me. Karanacs (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I never had much luck with them even when I was a student. They seem to pander to the "real" researchers. Given the static situation wiht Bonfire (it isn't likely to change...and even if it does, it wouldn't change the historical "how things were done" aspect), I think most of these images fall under Wikipedia:Non-free content. IMHO, start uploading and placing these pictures, but make sure we use the appropriate templates: {{Non-free promotional}} {{fairusenoalternative}}.

Also here's my two cents on what we should add and where:

Early years - fine as is, though maybe a portrait image if possible

Organizational change and expansion - add a picture of the redpots/brownpots

Design change - one picture each of stack and cut

Controversy - one picture of stack (seems to be where most controversy took place)

Later years - 1-2 pictures of modern bonfire

Collapse - fine, but a color picture of the same would be preferable; perhaps add the Battalion photo of Tim Kerlee and link his name to the article? As graphic as it is, it shows his dedication to others and the horrificness of the collapse.

Response - perhaps a picture of yell practice before the game?

Cause, aftermath, and controversy - any pictures of the board,

Bonfire Memorial - fine as is

Continuation - fine as is; could add a picture before burn if this section is expanded

— BQZip01 — ^talk 18:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured articles are supposed to limit the number of Fair Use images; I've seen controversy before when there are more than 3 in an article and I really don't want to have to fight this when it is on the main page. I don't think it would be wise to replace the free image of the collapse with a fair use image, even though the Batt photo is much more compelling. I also think we could run into problems by posting a random, copyrighted picture of the pots, because it is likely that we could eventually find a free image for that (plus, I don't think it adds much to the article to show a picture of a couple of guys in hard hats). We already have 2 fair-use images in the article, at most, I'd add one more. Karanacs (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Not saying you are wrong, but where does it say that? Yes, I'd like to avoid fights of this kind of stuff on Saturday too. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no official guideline or policy that I know of, but there are some users who are extremely anti-fair use, and I've seen several FAs where people have been insistent that the fair use images be trimmed down to under 3. I'm afraid that if we put too many in the article then we're asking for someone to come by and cause a stink. Karanacs (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone like EEE? ;) BlueAg09 (Talk) 19:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, this would be an issue up for IfD and not on this page. I'm willing to defend its use and I think it would be useful to have such shots.

As for EEE...yeah, I guess someone or anyone could raise it as a problem, but I think it is inevitable that we are going to get some "problems" that pop up when someone says, "Well, that's not right. I'm going to change it." We might as well have a good looking page. Furthermore, the copyrights on most stuff pre-1978 has run out anyway. They can claim copyright status, but if they post it online and make no effort to protect that copyright (which isn't indefinite), they become public and, thus, free use. I say we just go for it! If you guys back me, I'll be happy to add them, but I won't without your support. That goes for anyone else reading these comments too. Thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the m:mission of Wikipedia is to have a free encyclopedia with limited non-free content. Adding more non-free pictures would not adhere to that mission. If readers are interested in pictures, they can go to the Cushing Memorial Library page (we would have to add the link to that in the external links, if one doesn't already exist). Speaking of pictures, I got permission from the Flickr photographer to use the pics on Wikipedia - here they are. Don't y'all think one of those pictures would be better on the main page than the current one (the one I took)? BlueAg09 (Talk) 20:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The mission includes other things too:

"To produce a quality encyclopedia, striving to use media as much as needed for that purpose."

The biggest problem is that many of these images fall in the range of 1960-1990. There is no way to update such pictures. They are history and cannot be replicated/replaced.

On that vein of thought, I intend to be bold and add them later tonight or tomorrow, but I have no intention of being duplicitous or gratuitous with them. If free images that show these become available, I will be happy to personally propose deletion for such images. Fair 'nuff?

BTW, life is much more peaceful lately. :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you checked out the pictures that the guy in your Bonfire thread on TexAgs gave permission to use? He has a lot - perhaps we can use one or two. BlueAg09 (Talk) 17:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added a picture of the '94 bonfire rebuilt. Should we add the picture he has of the '89 or '90 bonfire in the controversy section? That's the best picture we can add there. Let me know if this picture is okay so I can upload it (gotta take it through OTRS first) BlueAg09 (Talk) 20:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I liked the picture you added of the '94 stack. Of the other pictures there, I like the one that showed the Austin city limits sign best (is that the one you were referring to?). Thanks for your hard work! Karanacs (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The new picture is MUCH better aethetically, but does not show the scale of the stack (Just how big are those logs?). The previous picture had people in the foreground that gave at least an inkling of the massive scale. Furthermore, the pervious picture was the one chosen for the main page. It might be a bit disingenuous to not include it in the article. We need to find a place for that picture in the article, IMHO.

BTW, Everyone NEEDS to check user:Johntex's user & talk page. Be sure to leave him a message or two. Tell your friends and colleagues...heck tell your enemies. Someone post it on Texags! — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)