Talk:Virginia Tech/Archive 3

Requested Move: → Virginia Tech

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. We have consensus that this name is overwhelmingly the most common way of referring to the institution. Cúchullain t/ c 16:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University → Virginia Tech – Although it might sound like a sports-oriented nickname, "Virginia Tech" is in fact the way this school is referred to in all but the most legalistic contexts. On their website or on a typical press release, the proposed form is used everywhere except in the fine print copyright notice. "Virginia Tech" is by far the most common name for this subject on Google Books, according to this ngram. It is also the search term our readers are most likely to use, according to Google Trends. Kauffner (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Supporting material

 * Policy: “Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." (WP:COMMONNAME)


 * References: There is actually a standard history for this school, Virginia Tech (2004) by Nelson Harris. The book No Right to Remain Silent: What We've Learned from the Tragedy at Virginia Tech (2009) by Lucinda Roy was widely read and reviewed. See also The Economist, ESPN, and New York Times.

Although I filtered for news articles only, the Highbeam results for "Virginia Polytechnic Institute" are almost entirely from scientific journals. The VPI hits on the Chronicle of Higher Education site are for employment ads. The New York Times VPI results are not for actual news stories either, but rather an artifact of their "E-mail Alert" software. Kauffner (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support Oppose. Very well researched. More than needed... Changing to oppose in deference to those who actually care. Apteva (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I also applaud your research, but we include more than just what is used popularly. "[E]ditors choose among [article titles] by considering several principles: the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles, precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable." Additionally, this is a policy, so all points must be met or balanced, not solely those mentioned within the subheading of [[WP:COMMONNAME. Given that Wikipedia:UNIGUIDE#College_and_university_articles also supports this "Colleges and universities should always be named using the common (not necessarily official) name of the institution. This can often be determined by looking at current branding of a university via their website, published documents, and advertisements.", I can see no reason to oppose. The official name should redirect to this article and the full name should be bolded in the lead. Buffs (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I have little to add here, having requested Kauffner draw up one of his meticulously researched RMs for the article; he didn't disappoint. As someone with a bunch of Hokie family members, I can testify that the official name of the school is likely to draw a quizzical stare from just about anyone; it's practically trivia at this point. --BDD (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as an example we have an article on Rutgers University and not the full title 'Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.' Across Wikipedia, there are dozens of similar examples of using the common name and not the official name.    Hot Stop     (Edits)   12:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, as long as you don't make me change my resume or diploma. HokieRNB 20:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongest Oppose Possible: VT's official name is in fact "Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University", over the years it was reduced (in nickname) to just "Virginia Tech". It's like WVU or UVA, they are still officiall called West Virginia University and University of Virginia respectively even though they are commonly called WVU or UVA (respectively).  Virginia Tech's name is "Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University" and any change would open up college pages to be renamed to their "nicknames".  This should go before an RfC as well since it is wide-encompassing. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 23:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

ANI
I have taken this issue to ANI for a community-wide decision as the move is against naming convensions. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 16:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The move was dictated by consensus and seems supported by WP:COMMONNAME. GiantSnowman 16:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Then shall we rename West Virginia University to "WVU"? Syracuse University to "Syracuse"?  Which college would get rights to "FSU"?  Which Miami would get "Miami", the city, the college in Florida or the college in Ohio?  Should Kansas State University be renamed to "K-State"?  Using COMMONNAME, the answer to all these, would be yes, yes, good question, the city, and yes.  We don't use COMMONNAME when it comes to official names and whether anyone wants to admit it or not, the official name of Virginia Tech is and always will be Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 17:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately WP:OFFICIALNAME is not a policy. As stated, feel free to open a new RM and state your case there. GiantSnowman 17:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If someone wants to contest the move, the proper forum is WP:Move_review. However, I don't see any basis to contest this decision. Kauffner (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Coming late to this discussion, while I agree that this isn't ANI material, the discussion deserves a wider audience and more comprehensive input. To cite a directly comparable instance, my alma mater is the Georgia Institute of Technology. While it's referred to as Georgia Tech almost exclusively, I'm not aware of any support for a bold move of the primary title to Georgia Tech, nor has the California Institute of Technology been moved to Caltech, as it is invariably called, and I would oppose a move for either. The seal of the university, prominently displayed, spells out the full name. I suggest that the bold move be undone; Acroterion   (talk)   17:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Acroterion, you have a better way of getting a point across than I...especially at this point. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 17:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My chief point is that this was a bold move based on a very narrow input: I would prefer that it first be reverted and reviewed via an RfC rather than moved on the opinion of four editors.MR is a procedural review, and the issue here is one of editorial discretion rather than procedure.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to explain the close in a bit more detail. First off, as was noted in the discussion, the relevant section at WP:AT says "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Additionally, as was also indicated, the college-specific guideline WP:UNIGUIDE says, "Colleges and universities should always be named using the common (not necessarily official) name of the institution" (emphasis mine). In this case, by all evidence, "Virginia Tech" is overwhelmingly the most common way of referring to the university in the sources, and no one appears to dispute that. There are other examples of college articles that use a non-official name when something else is overwhelmingly more common, such Ohio State University, Florida A&M University, and Rutgers University. As such, the move was supported by policy, practice, and the local consensus in the discussion. I'm sympathetic to the wish there had been more input, but there's no set amount of input an RM needs, and the fact is this had drawn almost no new comments for two and a half weeks. Especially considering the strength of the evidence, I stand by my reading of the consensus. As for the potential of this to affect other moves, I don't see that as an adequate reason to avoid an otherwise convincing move. As an aside, I really don't see it happening, anyway. I tend to doubt that, for instance, West Virginia University is really overwhelmingly better known as "WVU", and in many such cases the nicknames will fail other key naming criteria.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that Wikipedia could use a consensus-driven policy on the naming of colleges and universities. Until now, the naming has been derived from some version of the "official" name, and not "Virginia Tech," "Penn State," "Ohio State,"UMass," etc. The major exception, as pointed out above, is Rutgers, which is far preferable to its official title. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University could be argued to be a similar mouthful, but I would suggest that ample precedent exists with respect to all of the Techs, States, and A&Ms, of which Virginia Tech is now an outlier in the naming convention field. Rather than argue it at RM, which to me is a place to argue procedure (though I stand by the assertion that too few opinions have been solicited: we routinely relist AfDs to get broader consensus, for instance)., I would prefer that it be discussed here or as an RfC. I don't see "local consensus" as sufficient to overturn a de facto convention for the States and Techs without much more input from the community.
 * A bit of history: when I was looking at colleges in the mid-1970s, Virginia Tech was called VPI: the change to Virginia Tech was part of a rebranding campaign by the university, who found VPI to be a bit vanilla, not without reason, and "Poly" wasn't in the running. The Virginia Tech name has taken root for good as a shorthand, which is fine.
 * Most of time, I'm arguing in favor of WP:COMMONNAME: in fact, this is probably the first time that I haven't, and I think this points up a significant exception to the policy that has existed without notice until now. I make an analogy to WP:ENGVAR: we don't change between varieties of English without good cause: I see no compelling reason to alter an informal naming convention in this instance either. At some risk of an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, if there is a "convincing argument" for this, then the argument is equally convincing for all the other Tech and State universities, which I suspect would be opposed. I haven't seen an article about the Sandusky affair that gave more than a nod to "Pennsylvania State University," for instance. I seem to recall an extremely contentious discussion about the "The" in that case, but I don't think a rename to Penn State was ever seriously considered. Similar issues have come up concerning Ohio State. Virtually all articles on universities use the title/lede format format "Northern North Carolina State University, also known as Northern State ..." with a redirect from the informal name. Acroterion   (talk)  ''' 22:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The biggest thing I take from this is that no one is disputing the fact that Virginia Tech is the most common name. I reiterate that common names are preferable per both the the WP:AT policy and the college guideline WP:UNIGUIDE, as well as in practice. It's simply not true that articles on colleges always use the "official" name; as was pointed out in the initial discussion, there are plenty of exceptions when something else is overwhelmingly more common. For example, it's Ohio State University, not "The Ohio State University", Pennsylvania State University, not "The Pennsylvania State University", Florida A&M University, not "Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University", Louisiana State University, not "Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College", and Rutgers University, not "Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey". As such, the local consensus at this move request was in line with both policy and practice.
 * Taking this into consideration, I don't see any call to reverse the move unless it's by either another move request or it's overturned, for example by move review. I'll accept any outcome of a review, of course, but I continue to stand by my original decision.Cúchullain t/ c 04:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on the topic at hand but I am disappointed that no one has bothered to notify the Wikiproject most concerned with this specific article and the broader topic of college/university naming conventions, especially when the initial RM was initiated. If this discussion proceeds to an RfC or other more formal arena, please notify WP:UNI so its members can participate. ElKevbo (talk) 07:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Precedence and comparison
Although I initially weighed in with a support !vote, now that I've had the chance to look a little further, I'm questioning whether this was the right move. Here is a brief list of comparable articles that should be considered: Does Virginia Tech need to be the only outlier among polytechnic institutes? HokieRNB 14:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * California Institute of Technology (not Caltech)
 * Florida Institute of Technology (not Florida Tech)
 * Georgia Institute of Technology (not Georgia Tech)
 * Illinois Institute of Technology (not IIT or Illinois Tech)
 * Indiana Institute of Technology (not Indiana Tech)
 * Massachusetts Institute of Technology (not MIT)
 * New Jersey Institute of Technology (not NJIT)
 * New York Institute of Technology (not NYIT)
 * Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (not RPI)
 * Rochester Institute of Technology (not RIT)
 * State University of New York Institute of Technology (not SUNYIT)
 * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech)
 * Worcester Polytechnic Institute (not WPI)
 * Agree. It's also not e.g. Yale (very much the COMMONNAME) but Yale University. --78.35.246.146 (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Because "Virginia Tech" sounds similar to "Florida Tech" we should treat both names the same way? You can't trust your instincts on this. You have to run the numbers, and see how the school presents itself in its literature. Chronicles has 89 examples of "Florida Institute of Technology", 30 for "Florida Tech" . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kauffner (talk • contribs) 19:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not about numbers alone. I'm not sure why you think it would be related to "instincts". And it's not because they sound similar. It's not a rhyming game. It's about consistency. Alike articles should be named in alike ways. The list above reflects larger (4000 or more students) polytechnic institutes in the United States, of which Virginia Tech is one of the largest and most well-known. Florida Tech is probably not the best and most clear example; Georgia Tech and Caltech would be better. ("Georgia Tech" shows up 1000 to 1 over "Georgia Institute of Technology" in your search example; "Caltech" is 3 to 2 over "California Institute of Technology".) I'm not suggesting that the Virginia Tech article shouldn't ultimately be renamed, I'm suggesting that the move was done prematurely without including needed input from a much larger community to gain consensus about how similar schools should be named. HokieRNB 20:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As per RNB the results show this result is out of line. As far as WP:COMMONNAME goes my increasing observation is that it is either badly written, or not read when cited, or both. We keep on seeing RM discussions that read/interpret the WP:COMMONNAME guideline as WP:STREETNAME WP:TABLOIDNAME WP:NICKNAME. At the moment the guideline only says "Article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic" which rules out WP:VULGARNAME WP:PEDANTICNAME but doesn't tell Users whether en.wp wants to be an encyclopedia or USA Today. Even though in this case Google Books and Highbeam were used, not press, the result is a non-encyclopedic one. Which isn't anyone's fault, but is the result. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Upon further reflection, I believe that WP:COMMONNAME would support a move to Virginia Polytechnic Institute (dropping the "and State University" part of the title), but the overriding guideline should dictate that it be named consistently with other similar polytechnic institutes. How soon is too soon to ask for such a move? HokieRNB 02:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * On the question of time I think you'd only need agreement of at least 3 people on this talk page to enter an immediate RM, given the small sample on the RM itself. I'll be the third if you get a second. However Virginia Polytechnic Institute was the old name pre-War, I doubt it'd get much support. The best non-colloquial alternative is back to where the article was. More talk/thought is probably necessary. Opening an RfC on Talk:Florida Institute of Technology might be a better way to proceed. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no set period of time, or a specific number of users in "agreement", for a new RM, though usually some amount of wait time is expected. And I'd recommend against opening an RfC at Florida Institute of Technology unless you want to make some change at that article.Cúchullain t/ c 03:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Struck through above, per Cúchullain. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I note that WP:NICKNAME leads to a page on username policy that is unrelated to article titling. IMO, we should use a name that might be given in a formal context like the New York Times or Chronicles of the Higher Education. This is not something that can be determined by analogy-based reasoning. The school changed its short form name from VPI to Virginia Tech around 2000. "Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University" was always just a lawyers' name. So even someone who went to the school in the 1990s might not have a sense of the current nomenclature. Kauffner (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Few editors like consistency in article titles as much as I do, but Kauffner is right. You can't just change names through analogy; that's WP:OTHERSTUFF applied to RM. If any of those other schools use their nicknames as consistency as Virginia Tech, it may be appropriate to rename them, but as evidence presented in the RM demonstrates, "Virginia Tech" is much more than an athletic nickname, which many of the above nicknames and abbreviations are. I wonder if the school itself would use the nickname as consistently as it does if its official name weren't so unwieldy, e.g., if it were Virginia Institute of Technology. But that's just speculation. As it stands, official usage, scholarly usage, journalistic usage, and common usage all agree on "Virginia Tech" in this case. Only a zealousness for official names completely without basis in policy would support the full name—that, or a misunderstanding of the situation, such as mistaking "Virginia Tech" for a purely athletic moniker. I'm happy with this RM being used as a precedent for other schools, but only when usage makes those moves prudent to begin with. --BDD (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

First SMC to Admit Women
The article claims VT was the first college in the nation to admit women into its Corps of Cadets. The article gives no source for this and VT's own website states: "In 1973 Virginia Tech was among the first Corps of Cadets in the nation to enroll women, assigning them to L Squadron." Nowhere does it say it was the first. On the other hand, here is an artcile that specifically states North Georgia College was the first SMC to admit women. http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1100&context=eps_diss. Todd Gallagher (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'd take either source as definitive to identify VT or NGC as solely "first", since both claim 1973 and aren't more specific than the year. Without a source offering a dated policy announcement, "among the first" is probably as close as we should get.  VT  hawkeye talk to me 00:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Location of admissions office
Another editor and I disagree whether the following sentence merits inclusion in this article: "The Office of Undergraduate Admissions is located in the Visitor and Undergraduate Admissions Center." Can someone else please weigh in? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

List of peer institutions
Another editor and I disagree about the inclusion of a list of peer institutions in this article. The material in question:

Benchmark Institutions
Through a series of analyses and negotiations that occur about once every ten years, the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV) approves a group of peers comparable to each Virginia college and university against which to benchmark faculty salaries. The target for each Virginia institution's overall faculty salary average is the 60th percentile of the average salaries of its peers. Criteria such as enrollments, academic program offerings and degrees awarded, research funding, and the classification of institutions of higher education developed by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education are used in the analysis to identify comparable peer institutions.

Can someone else please offer an opinion on the suitability of this material for this article? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Information about men's basketball coaching staff
Another editor and I disagree about the inclusion of two paragraphs of material about the new men's basketball coach and his staff. The material in question:

In March 2014, Virginia Tech Director of Athletics Whit Babcock announced the hiring of Buzz Williams as the Hokies' new head men's basketball coach. Williams spent the previous six seasons as the head coach at Marquette University, where he compiled a 139-69 record and led the Golden Eagles to five NCAA appearances, including a trip to the regional finals in the 2012-13 season, the same season that the team won the Big East Conference's regular season title. During Williams's tenure, Marquette tallied a 69-39 record in the Big East Conference, and six Marquette players made it to the NBA.

In July 2014, Williams announced his staff. Isaac Chew, Steve Roccaforte, and Jamie McNeilly were named assistant coaches. Jeff Reynolds was named the director of men’s basketball operations. Devin Johnson will serve as the director of player personnel for men’s basketball, and Steve Thomas as the director of student-athlete development. Lyle Wolf joined the staff as the assistant to the head coach, and Ernest Eugene was hired as assistant athletics director for sports medicine and will serve as the team athletic trainer.

Can others please offer opinions on the inclusion of this material in this article? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Sub-sections in Athletics
I don't think "Virginia Tech" is need for the each of the subsection headings in Virginia Tech. In other words, "Baseball", "Men's basketball", etc. seem perfectly fine. Removing "Virginia Tech" is simple enough as long as these subsections are not linked to by other articles. In that case, a anchor might be needed to redirect those links as needed. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Virginia Tech Richmond Center
Notability is due to VT, size and advert content (i.e. needs cutting to stub) don't warrant much of merge. Widefox ; talk 02:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Definitely redirect to Virginia Tech. Czoal (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Virginia Tech Wikiproject and better sports articles
I created the Virginia Tech Wikiproject and plan to work on beefing the sports articles up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Go Hokies (talk • contribs) 00:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikiproject Virginia Tech Recommendations for improving this article:
Go Hokies (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Create a separate article for the history of Virginia Tech
 * Provide a paragraph or two about Virginia Tech’s student government
 * Provide a paragraph or two about the many different student organizations available
 * Provide more granularity into Virginia Tech’s research centers, initiatives, and activities
 * Create a separate article providing more detail about Virginia Tech’s libraries
 * Create a separate article for Virginia Tech’s Housing
 * Improve the List of Virginia Tech Alumni
 * Create a separate article listing the notable Virginia Tech faculty and administrators
 * Create a separate article for Virginia Tech’s Museums
 * Provide a paragraph or two about Virginia Tech’s media outlets
 * Provide a paragraph or two about Virginia Tech’s transportation
 * Provide a paragraph or two about scholarships available to students

Proposed merge with Virginia Tech School of Public and International Affairs
fails WP:GNG. promo article WP:TNT. Best to WP:SPINOUT Widefox ; talk 02:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support' per nominator. Corkythe hornetfan  03:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "question and clarification" is every other school and college already merged? if the college of engineering isn't merged too, then this is a solid no, as the international impact of SPIA is significant and notable. but if this is just a cleanup of all schools and colleges then it makes sense. Buridan (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTINHERITED. We don't create sets of articles, they have to stand on their own merits. Widefox ; talk 12:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Dining
This is a great article with lots of information on many aspects of Virginia Tech. However, isn't it important to elaborate on the dining facilities located on campus for students? No minor flex plans are written, and only one dining hall (D2) is mentioned, shouldn't each dining hall be showcased? Ellad (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Removing template for "Multiple Issues"
I have read this article and compared it with those of VT "sister institutions" and found no reason for assigning the template for "Multiple Issues." Most of the concerns have been met or were already reached by the time it was first placed here. Moreover, I don't see any explanation on this page supporting the claims in the template. If you think this template is required in this article, I will request you first present your views and evidence here on the talk page before reinstating it or reverting my edit. Caballero / Historiador ⎌  04:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

adding section for Ring Dance
Ring Dance is a huge tradition for the University, I am surprised that its been neglected in this page. Is this for any particular reason? I was imagining that it could go under the section "Student Life" Darryl.jensen (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Timothy Sands Profile.jpg

Innovation Campus in Northern Virginia / National Landing
Given the recent announcements about the VT Innovation Campus in National Landing, where should information on the new campus go? My guess / nomination would be under Virginia_Tech versus a new article, but I would like to hear what others have to say before I boldly add it myself. Peace MPS (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of 2007 shooting in lede
Since this topic is still open for discussion on the talk page its a great place to bring up the fact if the shooting should be mentioned in the lede. It is one of the most notable events to occur at the university and one of the most notable mass shooting events in United States history. A simple google search loads up thousands of articles about the Virginia tech shooting - more than any other topic about VA Tech. It is so significant it is even brought up in the news consistently today. These are all within the last week   If the factoid about the university being the 2nd largest public university in the state is included, there's really no rational to not include that its the university of the deadliest school shooting. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I find that incredibly difficult to believe that a Google search of "Virginia Tech" returns articles about the shooting "more than any other topic about VA Tech." None on the first page. None of the second page. In fact - you guessed it - none on the third page. On and on. That's completely farcical. The event is indeed important, but it already has an entire article dedicated to it. Additionally, the  lede should reflect the body of the article in question. The Virginia Tech article is massive and focuses mainly on the academics, campus and sports. Because the 2007 massacre is so important, it has its own small paragraph and section which leads readers to the [| much more in-depth individual article]. The comment by Otto1970 makes a lot of sense in this regard. Darryl.jensen (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * We've had this debate before and it's clear that some people don't like mentioning the 2007 mass shooting in the WP:LEAD, even though it received massive worldwide news coverage. There is some WP:TOPIC deviation here, although for an average person such as myself, it is hard to think about Virginia Tech without thinking about the 2007 shooting at some point. People in Dallas may get bored when the Assassination of John F. Kennedy is mentioned endlessly, but it's just one of those things.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think it's reasonable to briefly mention this in the lede (one sentence at the most) but I don't feel strongly one way or the other. ElKevbo (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Obviously worth mentioning in the article, but do think it should not be mentioned in the lede.Jethrovia (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems this issue has recently come up again.

It's unfortunate at many levels, but the many significant things Virginia Tech is known for includes the shooting. It's fine that the article itself spends only a little on this this as we can link to the article dedicated to it, but removing it from the lede entirely is unjustifiable. At least some readers will come to this page after seeing an indirect reference to the tragedy like "remember Virginia Tech" or such, come here to learn what this means, and be misled if the shooting wasn't mentioned in the lede. On the other hand, readers that are only interested in scholastic qualities of Virginia Tech won't be be somehow misled in any way by the short mention of the shooting.

Some may feel that Virginia Tech itself could be harmed in some way by this mention, but that's nothing to do with WP. We don't hush-up the fact that George Washington owned slaves; we just state verified facts. (Besides, trying to hush something up is a good way to make it appear more important when its finally realized.) WP doesn't practice any form of censorship for any group's benefit.

So having the shooting mentioned in the lede helps when it helps, is harmless otherwise, and is our encyclopedic duty. --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits...
There has been some back&forth on the wikilinkage of Georgia-Pacific vs Georgia Pacific Corporation, Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine vs Virginia–Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine, and US involvement in the Vietnam War vs US involvement in the Vietnam War. The involved editors should discuss their editing here on the talk page. I reverted the header of "Late second millennium" to "Late 20th century". Will discuss if needful though I explained my reasoning fairly succinctly in my edit summary. Shearonink (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Shootings and murders, oh my!
There are six paragraphs devoted to shootings and murders since 2007. Are we sure that's appropriate for an encyclopedia? I mean, I can see maybe one paragraph summarizing all of it. Do we need all the details of what the surveillance video captured, and who told the police what? Do other college articles describe in such detail the crimes committed on campus? This seems to me to go against the guidelines that Wikipedia is not a newspaper - Kzirkel (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with this, and I also think the reference to the 2007 shooting should be removed from the introductory paragraph. It does not seem appropriate to have this event included in the handful of facts used to introduce a major research university that tens of thousands of people have attended for a century and half. It is very easy to find additional information on the shootings in the separate article devoted to them, which can be linked to lower down in the article. Keeping it at the header would seem almost to rise to the level of an unnecessary trigger -- people are simply looking for information about the school, as I was. For a comparison, more than 400 people died in traffic accidents in Virginia in 2020, but we do not note this in the introductory paragraph to the state of Virginia wikipedia page. Full disclosure -- I have no relationship to the university and have never visited there.
 * – don.s.okeefe (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Circling back, it really is shocking that the page space devoted to incidents of violence is so much greater than that used under the heading "Academics." As User:Kzirkel says, this is not a newspaper. The rule of "it bleeds, it leads" should not apply here. This is an encyclopedia entry on an academic institution, not click bait.
 * – don.s.okeefe (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Why are you edit warring to remove this material from the lede of this article without any discussion? A single sentence mentioning a very prominent historical event at the institution is warranted in the lede. ElKevbo (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * User:don.s.okeefe has already explained my reasoning above. AlsoWukai (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. But why have you begun an edit war instead of following WP:BRD? ElKevbo (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My 2c is that mentioning the shooting in the lead isn't necessary but it has to be mentioned later on. It's clear that some people at Virginia Tech don't like mentioning it at all, but WP:NOTCENSORED.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Endowment total needs to be updated to 1.68 billion.
https://www.vtf.org/portfolio 136.56.42.243 (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)