Talk:University of Missouri/Archive 1

message: Ok, I'm wondering why there is no entry under alumni for Sam Walton. I am in the middle of writing a report on Sam and his impact on America through 
Wal-Mart and, out of curiousity, I followed the link for UOM - C to this page. It struck me as funny that someone so influential (good or bad, reguardless) was not listed.
Ferrett 17:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sam Walton

message: I'm reverting this:
:The Missouri Residence Hall Association is among the best in the nation. Current President and Vice President Justin Ginter and Jennifer Williams have worked wonders with the relationships between the Association, higher powers and actual residents.
I'm sure Justin and Jennifer are great people, but this statement is highly POV. Adam 22:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV in Residence Hall Association

message: See the University of Missouri System talk page for discussion.—Lazytiger 15:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[University of Missouri]] redirected to [[University of Missouri–Columbia]]

message: The MU stacked logo is much more readily associated with the Columbia campus than the System-wide seal.  The seal should be reserved for use on the System page.—Lazytiger 17:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quote: "The University of Missouri–Columbia has one logo. It consists of the letters MU stacked within a stylized shield..." (emphasis mine). You are not wrong to say that the seal represents the MU campus, but it represents all UM System campuses equally (and is on all diplomas), whereas the stacked MU logo is definitively referring to the MU campus. And it is most certainly not informal; it is the logo used in all official MU correspondance—the seal is not. I'd like to keep the infoboxes clean and simple (and uniform among all the UM campus articles), using the seal only for the UM System article and using only the stacked MU logo for the MU article.—Lazytiger 02:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Lets compromise and include both, such an arrangement has been used on the Baylor University article.  Just about every Big XII school article has its university seal displayed in the leader space and I can understand your point regarding the stacked logo. BCV 02:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But can you also understand my concern for wanting to keep the infoboxes uniform across all the UM campuses? Putting the seal in with the MU logo (let alone the stylized box) is throwing a monkey wrench in the uniformity. Can't we reserve the seal for the UM System page? Using the seal for the MU campus is more of a legacy thing; it has long since been reassigned to represent the entire system. To be fair, it should then be placed in every campus' infobox, but I get the feeling you don't want that any more than I do. MU shouldn't get to hoard it.—Lazytiger 02:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if you can understand my concern for wanting to include the seal as is done with the other Big XII schools also for the uniformity argument.  While I agree the system uses the seal; the seal is still displayed on campus at locations not associated with the system but solely associated with MU, again the stadium which was renovated about seven years ago chose to prominently display it.  If the seal was on the phase out, why not just put the stacked logo on it instead? The best approach to collaboration is to compromise which I have not problem doing here. BCV 02:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uniformity among the Big 12 schools is going to be much harder to accomplish than within the UM System. For one thing, not all of the Big 12 universities' articles have received an equal amount of attention; I would hardly call them uniform at all compared to the uniformity that I created for the UM System articles. Also, not all schools in the Big 12 are systems and therefore any seal or other logo associated with those schools do not have any complications to deal with. Even among the ones that are systems, they do not necessarily regard all their campuses as being of equal standing the way the UM System does. I never implied that the seal is going anywhere, only that it is freely associated with all four campuses, not just MU. Yes, MU does use the seal around campus, just as any of the four campuses in the UM System are free to do; that does not indicate that MU is entitled to a greater association with the seal. Mostly though, I'm just annoyed that you're messing up what I thought was a nice uniform look for the infoboxes.—Lazytiger 03:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Another important point that I noticed while looking at the other Big 12 schools' articles: a lot of them use seals, so I understand your desire to use a seal for MU's article. However, the UM System campuses simply do not have campus-specific seals like many universities do. Unfortunate reality. The UM System has instead chosen to use its one and only seal to officially identify the System, and logos rather than seals to officially identify its campuses.—Lazytiger 03:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the seal was in the leader since last August - May 1st so it is not making a drastic change.  Again its a compromise, so let's please not get into an edit war. BCV 04:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't skip over all my points of validity in favor of bogus legacy. The fact that the seal was there from August to May doesn't make it correct, and I'm not quite sure how we are compromising on anything. Not having the MU logo is not an option as it is the sole (non-athletic) identity unique to the MU campus. Adding the seal is unfair to the rest of the campuses that have equal claim to it, and under no circumstances should it be displayed alone in the MU article. Not to mention that I've stated my annoyance with the breaking of uniformity that you've introduced. To me, the "compromise" is that the seal is displayed on the System page and nowhere else. It's not like I'm disowning the seal; I'm just insisting that it be put in its one and only proper place. Could we get a third party opinion here, please?—Lazytiger 04:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Obviously the compromise is displaying both, the seal was displayed prior even with your consent has you uploaded the current version and then removed it in favor of the MU logo and I believe the seal should be displayed as it is the seal of the University of Missouri established in 1839 in Columbia.  It is used on campus to identify Mizzou not the system in such locations as the stadium and in Memorial Union, these are not bogus claims.  BCV 05:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What it boils down to is that as of 1963 upon creation/renaming of the other campuses, MU does not have greater claim to the seal than the other campuses. In the context of Wikipedia, either all of the campus articles should include the seal or none of them. I obviously favor none because it looks a hell of a lot cleaner. I think the two symbols as you've placed them (with the colored box) looks gaudy. Plus if none of them use the seal, it leaves the seal unique to the System article (which is prominently linked in the first paragraph of each campus' article), thereby firmly establishing its true place and keeping a clean and consistent look for all the System article infoboxes. Making the MU infobox consistent with the other Big 12 campus articles is not going to be possible and certainly hasn't been achieved with the latest edit. I'd like to get some other people's opinions on the matter. Consensus will rule. Do we want an ugly infobox or a clean one?—Lazytiger 13:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I changed the infobox to what I consider an acceptable compromise. I'm willing to live with it if you are.—Lazytiger 13:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stacked MU logo vs. the seal 

message: I will be making an article on the University of Missouri Research Reactor Center as a part of a university research reactor series.  The organization of UM article doesn't seem conductive to the insertion of this link, so could someone add a brief sentence and a link to this article in whatever format you see fit?  Thanks!theanphibian 05:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, thanks for your work. Grey Wanderer | Talk 04:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  You guys seem to have no university template btw.  How sad.  theanphibian 05:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nuclear Reactor

message: In regards to having the space after the dash or whatever it is to avoid having "Missouri" moved down to a second line above the info box, that actually varies by browser.  For us non IE users, Missouri is moved down to a second line with the dash and removing it will actually correct that for some browsers.  But since I guess IE is still, unfortunately, the standard, then we'll go with it.
:Didn't see this discussion before my last minor edit; I removed the space again thinking it was an error. In my browser, the text is all on one line and it looked goofy with the space, but switching to a different browser made it go to two lines. I see what was being said about "Missouri" being forced to the second line, but I guess I don't have any problem with that and I'd rather not have the arbitrary space there to address what I consider a non-issue that in fact creates a new issue, at least in my browser with my settings (screen resolution, font size, Wikipedia skin, etc.) ⇒ B.Rossow talkcontr</span> Thursday, May 11, 2006 @ 13:59 (UTC)
:My two cents: in Safari, which is what I use 95% of the time, if there's no space "Missouri–Columbia" ends up on the bottom line. (Update: it seems this behavior is different between Safari 2.x and 1.x. 1.x drags both words down; 2.x breaks after the dash.) So that's why I put the space. When I saw the edit removing the space, I happened to be using Firefox. In Firefox (on Win or Mac) there's just enough room without the space to keep it on one line. I figured there would be differences with other browsers and I thought the space would be the best solution. Although now I'm thinking that putting a  in there might be the best solution. I'm also taking uniformity between the other UM campuses articles into consideration. It would be nicely uniform if "University of Missouri–" was always on the first line and then the campus city was on the second. Sigh... way too much mental power has been put into this.  ;)  I'm out.—Lazytiger 16:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet. Nightstallion moved all the UM System pages, but he did better than removing the spaces around the hyphen—he changed it to a dash. I'm not sure how all the unicode/special characters work in the URL (in Safari it just shows up as a dash, but in Camino it puts %E2%80%93 in the URL). I hope it doesn't make the URL annoying to most people, but at least it's grammatically correct!—Lazytiger 03:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  space or no space 

message: I seriously doubt that avoiding confusion with the U. of Michigan is the sole reason that MU is called MU rather than U of M. It probably stems more from the fact that MU was historically called Missouri University. Regardless, let's not resort to referencing other schools in the very first sentence of MU's article.—Lazytiger 17:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MU rather than U of M 

message: I'd like to include a little blurb in the intro paragraph about what Mizzou programs are nationally known.  The J-school need not be mentioned here... that's pretty much a given.  ;)  But what other programs do you feel are Mizzou's strong points?  I put biology, medicine, veterinary medicine, and agriculture, but it would be nice to be more specific. Maybe half a dozen things at most. Thanks!—Lazytiger 04:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Mizzou programs are nationally known? 

message: The numbers listed in the infobox were pulled from here:
http://www.umsystem.edu/ums/about/facts/#columbia
I'm guessing that the very high number of staff could be attributable to the MU health system employees, if they are included. MU is also the largest research institution in the state. Regardless, these are the official published figures. The number of full-time employees stated at http://www.missouri.edu/mufacts.htm is even higher: 12,143. I chose to use the uniform figures that were reported directly by the UM System for all four system campus infoboxes.—Lazytiger 03:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification of staff numbers 

message: Just to let the editors of the MU article know, I added a new article about Stratton D. Brooks. He was the president of the University of Oklahoma from 1912-1923 and the president of MU from 1923-1931. The article mostly concerns his tenure at OU but I encourage any of you to add what you can concerning his presidency at MU.--NMajdan•talk 20:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  President Brooks 

message: I've added a stubbish list of notable faculty members (past and present), with just a few people I can name off the top of my head to get things started. Would be great if anyone else could add to the list! Adam 21:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable faculty

message: The list of notable alumni is getting rather large.  Would it be appropiate to create it's own article and leave this main article for the university itself?  --Stevehrowe2 16:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many other universities have separate articles for their alumni, so I don't see any reason why you can't start a new article for Mizzou's.—Lazytiger 18:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting Alumni unto seperate article? 

message: someone might want to use info on this website: http://www.missouri.edu/about/pridepoints.php
--12.210.207.105 22:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mizzo Pride points 

message: This list is a little misleading, because what used to be the President of the University is now more akin to being the chancellor of the Columbia campus. There needs to be a break in there showing when the UM System was created and list chancellors after that time. Presidents after the UM System was created (or a complete list, if you prefer) should probably be listed in the UM System article.—Lazytiger 05:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes your right, I'll get on that. Perhaps we should list the presidents on the system page as well. Grey Wanderer | Talk 04:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presidents of the University 

message: I've always been a little unsure of why it's boast-worthy that Mizzou is "one of only six public universities in the country with medicine, veterinary medicine, law, engineering, and agriculture schools all on one campus." I know Mizzou boasts about it on its website, and it's been repeated in this article (in two places). But really, what's so impressive about having all of six randomly selected programs on one campus? Does it really need to be mentioned in the intro as a defining attribute of the University?—Lazytiger 20:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's so impressive? 

message: Guys we need to get some better sources added, and then cited in this article.  I love MU, but this article is very much in need of cited references.  I will leave it as is for now, but if it is not better in a couple weeks I'm going to throw a citation template up.  ThorX 23:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I am a current student of the university and I have begun to take pictures of all the academic buildings. I will begun uploading them shortly. I want MU to have a wiki page that rivals that of Michigan and UT. If anything, I feel that we should model our page after their's.
I'm going to try to take some pics around campus and Columbia when the weather improves too.  Breakyunit 03:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: We should create an article about the new cyclotron Mizzou bought this year and installed this month (August).  Here's some info on it. Breakyunit 03:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would integrate that information into the University of Missouri Research Reactor Center article (which also needs to be expanded) BlueGold73 12:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyclotron 

message: Substituted at 20:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I have seen other schools which have a gallery at the bottom of their page, and others that link to a wikimedia commons page (such as Duke).  Should we have one of these for this article, and if so, which one? It seems that featured articles have the link to wikimedia commons page and not a gallery. What is the easiest way to amass all the Mizzou related images and put them in the commons if we decide to do so?  Breakyunit (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can find a gallery of Mizzou images here.  I know there is some images floating around that are not in that gallery including some by you.  I like the commons path over the gallery path, just with an eventually FA Mizzou article in mind.Grey Wanderer | Talk 00:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend creating a Mizzou page on Commons and linking to it. Move all of the free (not fair-use) images from Wikipedia to Commons and add them to it. Some articles only link to the category but I don't think that looks as good. The link fits in the "External links" section. Below is an example of Texas Tech's. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery of photos or commons page? 

message: No where on the umsystem.edu website does it ever say anything about the University of Missouri-Columbia being a flagship campus.  This is a title that was drawn up by students faculty and alumni to enhance its own image and therefore i do not believe it should be allowed to stay on the site. Whsbrain (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While it does indeed appear (based on a few minutes of googling) that the system has never officially endorsed the term "flagship", that doesn't mean the term is necessarily incorrect (or POV), descriptively speaking. I believe that the term "flagship" is usually applied informally, and not officially conferred by governments or university systems. (Personally I'd be fine with substituting the term "oldest campus" or "founding campus" in the lead and deleting "flagship" from the infobox, but I'm not sure that others will feel the same way.) Adam (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I appreciate the responses.  If flagship means that a university is not a commuter college, vocational school or regional college then every school in the University of Missouri System whould be a flagship.  The schools were created to serve the state of missouri along with the cities they are located in(that includes columbia's campus).  I dont mean to mettle on Mizzou's page and i would never delete the word, I just get frustrated when people use the word flagship simply because they have been around the longest. Whsbrain (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Just thought I should note that by strange coincidence a flagship template has been added to the article, listing all the flagship universities in the U.S, by User:Jccort.Grey Wanderer | Talk 00:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that Robert M. Berdahl was a reliable enough source to use as a basis for the definition of the Flagship article.  The votes against the category is going heavily against it though.  If another couple of reliable sources other than USA Today are found then the flagship concept could be propagated but the definition seems a bit loose and open to political in-fighting. Since flagships are the most expensive ships in the fleet it seems to me that operating budgets should be the determining factor.  Alatari (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: flagship

message: I propose a merger of Associated Students of the University of Missouri and Missouri Students Association into this article.  Both articles suffer from WP:Original Research and as campus organization, it generally fails WP:Notability.--RedShiftPA (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: I accidentally hit return when I was trying to type an apostrophe in the edit summary I just made. What I was going to type is, "That's not MU's endowment, that's the UM System's endowment." The 1.1 billion dollar figure belongs on the University of Missouri System page, if you would like to put it there. In fact, I'll do it for you right now.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 01:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endowment 

message: I noticed that this error is appearing in the References section at the bottom, but I can't figure out why it's happening or how to fix it:
Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named MU_facts
The formatting looks exactly the same as other named citations that are working fine.  I'm baffled.  Can someone take a look at this and see if you can figure it out?  Thanks!—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 14:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Blah... that was certainly obscure! The first occurrence of that ref (containing the text) was under "budget=" in the infobox -- but "budget" is not actually a valid parameter for Template:Infobox University, and therefore the ref tag was never actually rendered. I removed the "budget=" line from the infobox (someone may wish to restore this information elsewhere in the article), and moved the citation text elsewhere -- seems to have done the trick. Adam (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for figuring it out! I never would have thought to check the validity of the infobox parameter.—Lazytiger (Talk | 
contribs) 05:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite error 

message: No one has been doing anything to expand that, so I'm going to delete it shortly if I don't see anything happening within the next couple days, unless others agree that it should just be deleted immediately.BlueGold73 (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps add the one cited sentence in that section into the prose, if possible, and delete the rest. I only added the expansion tag to replace an imroper text version that the creator of the section was using. I wasn't actively working to expand it. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Awards and Recognition section

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "MU facts" :
** MU Facts
** MU Facts | University of Missouri
DumZiBoT (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: In reading this article, I noted that in the Naming section, the reference cited in the last sentence (number 16) is no longer available online. As this reference is no longer available, I would request that the line it refers to be deleted. Wood712hill (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the recent edit to this portion before seeing this comment. I viewed it as an unexplained removal since the edit summary was not used. Nevertheless, even though the link is now dead does not automatically mean the material should be removed. An alternate source should be sought. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the link; all it took was changing "www" to "archive" in the URL.  Wood712hill—it is a bad policy to delete passages simply because of linkrot, especially when it can be so easily solved as it was in this case.  Don't show bias through deletion so easily. —Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 01:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Lazytiger-while I made the comment about the cited reference being outdated, I did not delete the line. It is bad policy to assume so. Obviously someone else believed the line should have been deleted. I think you too easily make accusations of bias when obviously you must feel some of your own to have so quickly defended what is a somewhat "biased" statement in the article itself. While the naming situation for the University may have created some tension at the time, it seems more politically motivated than informative in a Wiki article of this nature. When will this tension be allowed to die if this type of statement is encouraged?Wood712hill (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for assuming you made the edit, but you certainly inspired an anonymous party to make your suggested edit within 15 minutes of your note above.  The remarks that were made by faculty at other system schools certainly are biased; precisely for that reason, they are statements of historical interest illustrating the tension that existed at the time of the decision (and feelings that are no doubt still harbored), and therefore worthy of inclusion in this Wikipedia article.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 03:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

text: In case there is any doubt, I wrote the entire paragraph in question. Certainly, I have bias toward the quality of my own writing, but that's not to say it can't always be improved. Believe it or not, I try very hard to be as unbiased as possible. I often revise my writing, but I have not revisited this particular article in some time. I completely agree that the passage made it sound like everyone outside of Columbia is unanimous in their dislike of the renaming, and the word "some" was a necessary addition. That simple addition alone addresses your complaint about the supposed speculation. However, you went further and deleted the passage about arrogance, denigration, and integrity. I believe, even upon reexamination, that I fairly and accurately paraphrased the sources. I'm not debating that the people quoted are biased; I'm simply writing what was said. I find it very interesting that several important people (chancellor of UMSL, presidents of both UMKC's and UMSL's faculty senates) got bent out of shape about the decision. You're calling into question The Maneater as a source—first, I think The Maneater is about as reputable a source as any, even if it is student-run; second, if you want to raise the bar of acceptability to exclude such sources, Wikipedia simply couldn't exist; third, I don't see why there should be any questioning of their ability to simply print a quote, which is all that I used it for. I absolutely do not agree that anything I wrote (with the addition of "some" included) is speculative, original research, or in violation of Wikipedia's neutrality or verifiability policies. I have preached elsewhere on Wikipedia talk pages about "evenness of informational depth", so I'm sensitive to your critique of going off on a tangent. I'm glad you're thinking about it, but I don't think this is an egregious example. You mention maybe moving/including it in the UM System article (which I also largely wrote), which is something that I've thought about in the past but have not yet followed through. In any case, a tangent here or there isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as an overarching structure to the article has already been established, as I think it has here. Tangents can indicate hooks that future authors can grab onto and expand, or indicate the level of detail that should be established in other sections.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 19:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resource cited is no longer available 

message: There are now separate lists for UM faculty and UM alumni.  However, the main article has a list of UM alumni such as Tim Kaine who were never UM faculty, listed under the heading UM faculty.  Am I missing something, or if there is no objection, I will fix this. Racepacket (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Faculty vs. List of Alumni

message: There is currently an RfC on this question at Talk:University of Maine#Flagship RFC. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Whether the "flagship" status of a university can be presented as objective fact

message: In working on an article on Rothwell Gym, I've run into something bizarre in regards to Gideon Frank Rothwell. The official president page makes no mention of him but there is a break for the period where all sources other than the president page say that he was president (the list jumps from 1889 to 1891).  That is the only break in the chain.  The article on Academic Hall and the fire of 1892 makes mention of him and does not mention Richard Henry Jesse at all.  All reports mention that Rothwell was president at the time of the fire (although amusingly while the Academic article says he wanted to tear down the columns but new reports now paint him as their savior).  Even if you accept that perhaps he was not an official president and just an interim, it is clear that Jesse was not president at least at the beginning of 1892 and so that official list is suspect.Americasroof (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: University Presidents and [[Gideon Frank Rothwell]]

message: In reference to MU creating homecoming in 1911, that is false.  I don't know who started it, but I know schools were doing it before 1911 such as Baylor.  They just celebrated their 100 year homecoming anniversary.
http://www.baylor.edu/homecoming/splash.php  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.53.39 (talk) 04:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Baylor did hold a "homecoming" of sorts in 1909.  But reliable third party sources including the NCAA, Trivial Pursuit, and Jeopardy give credit to MU for holding the first modern day Homecoming event.  As best I understand it (and it is confusing) Baylor and the University of Illinois don't receive credit because they weren't annual events or weren't called homecoming. Grey Wanderer (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Homecoming

message: I'm trying to gauge the interested in created a Big 12 WikiProject and wondering who would like to be involved.  There are already pages for WikiProject Big Ten and WikiProject ACC.  A Big 12 project would cover the schools themselves and anything to do with conference sports including: events, rivalries, teams, seasons, championships and lore.  There is already quite a bit of activity here on Wikipedia regarding the Big 12, and I think a project could help coordinate and unify our efforts.  Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Big 12 if you are interested, and add your name to the list. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Big 12 WikiProject

message: There is a discussion about if the page should exist at Talk:Missouri–Nebraska football rivalry if anyone is interested. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mizzou-Nebraska rivalry

message: I for one would be interested in knowing why this is commonly referred to as MU instead of UM, considering it is the University of Missouri and not Missouri University. 69.29.207.109 (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a reference to cite, but my understanding is that this practice goes back to the days of the old Big 8 conference. In addition to MU, the University of Kansas goes by KU; the University of Colorado, CU; University of Nebraska, NU; University of Oklahoma, OU. (UM is still used, but only in reference to the University of Missouri System, where as MU means the campus in Columbia.) Dmp348 (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, but rather than answer the question, this tidbit just expands the question: why did these schools choose to reverse the initials? I suppose it possible that since there is more than one "University of M state" etc., this would be a way of distinguishing Mizzou from, say, the University of Michigan or Minnesota, but most of the time context avoids confusion. Wschart (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why MU and not UM? 

message: Is there a reason UM-Columbia's endowment is displayed as the entire system's endowment?  Shouldn't the endowment on this page reflect the university's endowment number, as per http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/columbia-mo/university-of-missouri-2516?  I just think that making this campus' endowment that of the entire system's gives precedent to then change the numbers of MST, UMKC, and UMSL to display the same figure.  Would it be OK to change the endowment figure to that of this universities', instead the systems?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.216.17 (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endowment figures 

message: Hello. I stumbled upon this picture, and I thought it could be interesting to use it in the article. Does anybody know if that shooting club is still active at the University?Jeff5102 (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, let's put it in! Parkwells (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Have done extensive copy editing to the article to: reduce marketing verbiage, take out red links, make language and sentences more concise and direct, reorder photos to relate better to text and in terms of appearance on the page, and similar changes.  Journalism students at MU may want to review this article again, but make sure you don't get carried away by too many details.  All the coaches don't need to be named; none of the scholars are, nor academic department heads, nor leaders of research centers.  It is supposed to be a university, not just a sports complex.Parkwells (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing

message: I apologize if this was already discussed, but I am wondering what the seal of the University of Missouri System is used as the logo on MU's page?  According to MU's website their logo is the two letters "M" "U" stacked on top of each other.  When looking at the other schools in the system they have the official seal along side of their logos.  Is there a reason that MU is using the system seal only?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.177.180 (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It was done to bring the page into alignment with the current standards for higher ed featured articles.  The seal its self has throughout most of the schools history represented only the MU campus and is prominently featured in MU art and architecture. Hope that answers your questions. Thanks Grey Wanderer (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: logo

message: :Is there a source for the French claim from a reliable third-party? Also, as this is the english wikipedia, it needs to be in english. If this can be found then we should note that in the lead. Grey Wanderer (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: First journalism school

message: There are only six societies and one student association included here. I've visited the university and I know there are many many more.  I work closely with the Trulaske Consulting Association and the Muslim Students Organisation and I'm adding them to this page. However, there needs to be more information in this section and I appreciate any effort to do so.
spartymantz (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Groups and Activities - Improvement needed 

message: Without a doubt, two MAJOR names are missing:  Walter Cronkite, and Mort Walker.  Whereas some might not consider Mort Walker a major alumnus, there is a statue of Beetle Bailey on campus.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.93.199.11 (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Mort Walker is listed in the main article of U of M alumni: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Missouri_alumni As for Cronkite, his biography says he went to the U of Texas. I went to Mizzou and never heard him mentioned. Bkatcher (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Alumni 

message: I know it's in flux, but shouldn't the resignation of the president (an office not listed by us because he is the president of the umbrella organization, the U of Mo system) (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/11/09/mizzou-faculty-walks-out-student-association-calls-presidents-removal/75448392/) be included? Kdammers (talk)
:Yeah, it's national news so the resignation and the events surrounding it probably merit a sentence or two in this article.  ElKevbo (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised to see no mention of the recent controversy as well, but I would have expected more than a sentence or two.  I fully expected a section that discussed the recent controversy.  IMO, to ignore it makes the university seem to be "out of touch" with what has been going on, for lack of a nicer way to put it.  Gandydancer (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  See 2015 University of Missouri student uprising We43ff21 (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't this be referred to in the article itself? 80.6.171.242 (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  President resigns 

message: http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/10/was-the-poop-swastika-incident-at-mizzou-a-giant-hoax/ We43ff21 (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Except for  the actual police report. Your edits illustrate the dangers of relying on speculations by partisan media. Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is zero evidence that the poop swastika actually existed. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on University of Missouri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070819142254/http://www.umsystem.edu/ums/president/former.shtml to http://www.umsystem.edu/ums/president/former.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on University of Missouri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080509122910/http://formizzou.missouri.edu/news/mering-gift.php to http://formizzou.missouri.edu/news/mering-gift.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070808051207/http://www.georgekessler.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=43 to http://www.georgekessler.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=43
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090618031609/http://truman.missouri.edu:80/about/index.asp to http://truman.missouri.edu/about/index.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on University of Missouri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120721055557/http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com:80/AcademicConsortium to http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/AcademicConsortium
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article currently purports that the university's Latin motto is "Salus populi suprema lex esto", with a translation of "Let the welfare of the people be the supreme law". The Latin motto is unsourced, and the translation's source is shown as http://www.umsystem.edu/ums/departments/ur/resources/index.shtml. However, it and another source (https://www.umsystem.edu/media/ur/UMSYSStyleGuide-Digital.pdf), both from the University of Missouri, say the Latin motto is just "Salus populi", with a translation of "The welfare of the people". My change to the article to reflect what the sources show was reverted by Grey Wanderer, who claimed "... the words on the seal are a fragment of the Universities' full motto, which is the same as the state of Missouri, If you'd like we can discuss this on the talk page."  So, let's discuss.  I'd be particularly interested in seeing a source, or two, showing the Universities' motto is just a fragment and actually the same as the state's, especially since the sources from the university itself make no such claim. Contributor321 (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a source from the University that gives more detail, and says what I said. I added it to the article before you made this comment. You could also refer to Jonas Viles 1939 book The University of Missouri: A Centennial History. Barring those two things I think it could be fairly common sense that "The Welfare of the People" would be very unusual for a motto because it's literally just a noun phrase. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

text: Grey Wanderer: you just added to the article a "more detailed reference for motto" (https://www.umsystem.edu/about-us/history) which states "... the phrase that’s part of the university and state motto; “salus populi”, meaning “the welfare of the people”." which actually supports my contention and undermines yours.  I'm confused: are you now agreeing with me? Contributor321 (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand it says, "phrase that’s part of the university and state motto; “salus populi”, meaning “the welfare of the people”." "part of" being the key thing here. It also makes clear that the motto of the University and the State of Missouri are the same. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

text: Here's a reference from the student newspaper  that explicitly states the full motto. A quick google search shows there are lots of other sources that demonstrate my point   . Here is the 1928 MU year book that has the full motto. Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for doing the research - I'm now convinced.  Looks like the University needs to correct it's own Style Guide (https://www.umsystem.edu/media/ur/UMSYSStyleGuide-Digital.pdf), by adding "part of" to Section 5.1's "The open book at the top of the crest contains the Latin words Salus Populi, the University's motto (emphasis added), or explicitly stating the entire motto by including "suprema lex esto" in the text. Contributor321 (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! You ain't wrong, maybe I'll write a letter. One of the many reasons I'm suspicious of public relations/marketing folks is their tenuous knowledge of history. Thanks, no shame in asking someone to back up their claims. Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the PR/marketing folks didn't go to the Missouri School of Journalism - someone skimped on the research/proofreading. While on the topic, I noticed the seal shows "Sigill Universitatis Missourien ". However, under the seal an editor wrote "Latin: Universitas Missouriensis" (differences highlighted). I don't know Latin grammar but do know Sigill means seal: does its presence justify changing Universitatis Missourien to Universitas Missouriensis? Or is the edit wrong and they should be the same? A Google search wasn't helpful; if you don't know, maybe we should wait a few weeks for a Latin major to chime in and if no one does, just remove the "Latin: Universitas Missouriensis" label under the seal.  What do you think? Contributor321 (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm that’s a good question. I’m certainly not qualified to give you a definitive answer. I know I’ve read somewhere that the seal part translates as “Seal of the University of Missouri”. My very rudimentary knowledge of Ancient Greek, which I know is similar to Latin in that nouns have cases, makes me think that the endings of the nouns probably do change when a descriptor is added; so I’m guessing it is correct as is. If someone more knowledgeable wants to chime in I’d be interested. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

text: Contributor321, the article is correct. Compare the Latin version of the page and the inscription on the gates of the University’s main entry. Grey Wanderer (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good find, Grey Wanderer.  That settles it.  Thanks. Contributor321 (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: University Seal

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Universidad de Misuri. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 10#Universidad de Misuri until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Hog Farm (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Universidad de Misuri" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]