Talk:University of Wisconsin (disambiguation)

message: As for the order of the links... 
1...If it is placed chronilogical order, then UW-Madison should be first, as it was the first campus that began in 1848. However...
2...According to the Manuel of Style page, "place the items in order of usage, with the most-used meanings appearing at the top and less common meanings below." So, if we actually follow the guidelines, UW System and UW-Madison should be placed first, as they are obviously the most-used meanings. – Lordmontu (talk) • (contribs) 03:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reformatted under the MoS guidelines. Madmaxmarchhare 16:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That is the case when "University of Wisconsin" itself is a disambig, but since it redirects to Madison under the current arrangement. Madison campus should be at the bottomn. Miaers 03:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, when someone points out that you are using your logic incorrectly, you simply change the terms of the original statement?  Thats not how it works.  According to both types of citation in the manual of style, UW-Madison should be listed first, so what does your point have to do with anything?  Cheers, PaddyM 03:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If you look at the "What links here" on University of Wisconsin, you can see most of the "University of Wisconsin" used here are the intitution from 1848 to 1956. Not Madison campus. The currrent redirect already goes to the Madison campus. It is basically the first result. Miaers 17:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not _chronology_ that people are worried about here, Miaers, it's the campus built around Bascom Hill that they're thinking of when they say "University of Wisconsin" before 1956. Just because someone gradauted from UW before 1956 doesn't mean that they went to the _former_ institution, it's that they went to the university on the hill, which is the Madison campus _today_. Madmaxmarchhare 17:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Miaers, as I disagree with your opinion, let's go with the guideline. And, most of what's linked to the UW does NOT have anything to do with chronology. If professor Ziggy won a Nobel Prize in 1933, he wasn't at the FORMER UW, he was at the campus that's in Madison, UW-Madison. Either way, since we can't agree, let's use the guideline. Madmaxmarchhare 18:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What are you talking about? The place in Madison has been there since statehood (more or less). You are the only one who wants to deny that UW-Madison is the same school that has always been in Madison, and that somebody who graduated from it in, say, 1895, graduated from what is now UW-Madison and was then simply called "the University of Wisconsin." --Orange Mike 18:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Is it me, or is this just getting more insane? Madmaxmarchhare 19:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, but that thing that you're talking about is known as UW-Madison, today. Just because the names and administrations have changed, the institution is still one in the same. Either way, I can see no compelling reason to change or to go away from accepted practices and guidelines. Thank you for your contributions, however, Maiers. Madmaxmarchhare 19:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, we're at a stalemate--what do you suggest we do if we don't go with the guidelines as the default? Madmaxmarchhare 19:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, so what do you suggest we do? Madmaxmarchhare 19:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, those suggestions aren't going to be followed right now, is there anything else you'd like to discuss, or can we go ahead and close this out? Madmaxmarchhare 21:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No problem. Sounds like an interesting find about UW-Madison. Take care, and I wish you all the best on other pages that you're working on. So, we're calling this one closed, now, right?Madmaxmarchhare 21:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, thanks, but the correct version is in place currently. No need to revert this one at all. Thanks for your efforts, though. Madmaxmarchhare 21:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order 

message: I don't know why the fact that UW-Madison is the "Flagship campus of the UW System" is being deleted. This information should definitely be placed in a dab page, as it describes what the Madison campus is. University of Colorado and University of Maryland, College Park both use the term "flagship campus" – Lordmontu (talk) • (contribs) 03:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Flagship is not a politically correct word. Please see Flagship for detail. Miaers 03:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you even read the page you are referencing?  According to Flagship, flagship is a common term and it is normal for a university to refer to itself in that manner.  It appropriately describes Madison as the largest (both in land and population) and the site of the administration of the university system.  Cheers, PaddyM 03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Apparently the U Wisconsin Business School didn't get the memo: . --Akhilleus (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, the University of Wisconsin-Madison's University Communications department recommends that campus units can use the following boilerplate text when they wish to describe UW-Madison: "The University of Wisconsin–Madison is a public, land–grant institution that offers a complete spectrum of studies through 12 schools and colleges. With more than 41,000 students from every U.S. state and 120 countries, UW–Madison is the flagship campus of Wisconsin’s state university system..."  --Akhilleus (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the research.  I'll add it to the page.  Cheers, PaddyM 23:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "flagship campus" 

message: There now seems a rough consensus that the expansion should go ahead, and the page has been unprotected with the word "flagship" retained, so I've pasted the expanded version into the live version, and incorporated the term flagship into it. This preserves the past history of the article but not the edit history of the new version of course... that is preserved mainly in these talk pages in any case.
Details of the expansion (and particularly whether the "unrelated" links should stay there) can be further discussed here as issues in their own right, see below. Andrewa 18:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Action

message: There seems some doubt as to whether this section complies with WP:MOSDAB#Examples_of_individual_entries_that_should_not_be_created and Wikipedia:Disambiguation#What_not_to_include. My feeling is that the section is a useful one, and that this doubt should be resolved by updating these guidelines, rather than removing the section from this page. Other comments? 
Particularly, input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation would be appropriate on this point. David has raised this already at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#UW redux, and I'll add a note there as well. Andrewa 18:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not related to the University of Wisconsin

message: This is a redundant article. It can be replaced with University of Wisconsin System. I have nominated it for deletion. All the things related with any of the UW system campuses has University of Wisconsin in their names. (eg. University of Wisocnsin-Parkside School of Business, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee student union etc. ). It is pointless to list parts of these universities. Miaers 04:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Wisconsin (disambiguation) (3rd nomination). Andrewa 10:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomination for deletion

message: Shouldn't the links in a dab page be only to wikipedia articles? The colleges and schools under the UW-Milwaukee section are currently linked to external links. – Lordmontu (talk) • (contribs) 22:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Madmaxmarchhare 22:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We need to fix and weed. --Orange Mike 22:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 1) Each Center is a separate institution, and needs a link to it, as opposed to our Colleges, etc. here at UWM. 2) No, actually, the Hospital is a separate institution (a move made during the Thompson administration so they could play games with the state employees' contract). --Orange Mike 23:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for pointing out that the hospital was mis-listed as part of the University; I've fixed that and created an article for the UWHC and UWHCA that Thompson set up back in 1995 when he was feuding with the employees there. --Orange Mike 23:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Have we got a problem here, or am I not being patient enough? --Orange Mike 23:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my comments re:disruptive editing on Talk:University of Wisconsin. I think this has been going on way too long...I'm not a regular in these discussions, but it seems like every time I drop in, not much has changed. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Harvard? State of Wisconsin? This is getting a little shady. Madmaxmarchhare 00:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Miaers, you have really hit rock bottom and are starting to dig. No one in their right minds would think what you've done is within the context of the discussion. Madmaxmarchhare 00:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Wikipedia:Disruptive editing]] 

message: I don't think a disambig page needs a see also section. The contents under this subtitle are far fetched to be University of Wisconsin. Miaers 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: See also section

message: Your edit on UW disambig is vandalism. Please contribute constructively and use discussion to solve dispute. Miaers 23:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are cramming a lot of items which don't have "University" and "Wisconsin" in their names onto :University of Wisconsin (disambiguation), a disambiguation page, apparently to give more attention to UWM (a place I, too, love well). In the meantime, in what appears to be a fit of pique you have tried to conceal a long list of institutions which do have "University" and "Wisconsin" in their names, on the grounds that people should know that they are part of the UW Colleges system. You are undermining the purpose of a disambiguation page, since your motions to delete the page aren't going anywhere this time either. In doing so, you are doing disruptive damage to the page and the Wikipedia project. --Orange Mike 23:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, Bascom Hill and the rest should be removed as irrelevant. Your reasoning on the colleges is totally flawed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 23:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You don't seem to have read the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages. The purpose of these pages is to list things which sound alike. Thus, we need individual links to UW-Waukesha, etc., since the non-local may not understand that such places are covered under [[:University of Wisconsin Colleges! Their status as part of the college is irrelevant for the purposes of disambiguation. --Orange Mike 23:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The casual reader will not understand from a name like "University of Wisconsin-Waukesha" that it is a subordinate unit of anything. That, I reiterate, is exactly the function of a disambiguation page: to resolve the ambiguity of a name like that. Stripping the page of these links defeats the entire purpose of the page, which is not to explain the structure of Wisconsin's educational system, but to help people figure out where to go for further information on a given entity. --Orange Mike 00:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The purpose of a disambiguation page is to disambiguate. It is not to teach, to explicate, to diagram or to decipher. Its sole reason for existence is to show people where to go to find information, in this case, about something called the University of Wisconsin whatever and nothing else. You do have a genuine understanding about the intricacies of how Wisconsin's higher education system has evolved and is structured; but none of that is even remotely relevant to the subtle science and exact art of disambiguation. --Orange Mike 00:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: OrangeMike