User talk:CollegeSportsGuy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user is currently busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

[edit] Mid-major

I moved Missouri Valley to Mid-Major Basketball program, seems like its one of the leagues that define the name. FancyPants 05:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

What is your reason for changing references to University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee to the less official and less informative UW-Milwaukee? --mtz206 (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You state on this edit they are referred to as UW-Milwaukee or UWM for "all NCAA purposes." I don't know what you're referring to, but they are listed at the official NCAA website [1] as "University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee". --mtz206 (talk) 11:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The list you refer to is a "member institution list", as it states at the top of the page. All NCAA Division I school's full name's are there, including the University of North Carolina, Charlotte and University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. If you don't like the fact that many school's such as Charlotte, Chattanooga and Milwaukee choose to use a shorter name for their NCAA TEAMS (not institutions), I don't know what to tell you. It's pretty commonly accepted by everyone else that some universities with longer names (Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, Texas Tech, and particularly state U campus's like Wisconsin, North Carolina, Arkansas, Colorado, etc.) do this. Milwaukee has simply decided to do the same.

And I don't see how it's less informative. It's considered common knowledge what state a city the size of Milwaukee is in. Do you think that university's that use similar abbreviations such as UNC Charlotte (a smaller city than Milwaukee), or even an accepted abbreviation such as UAB, are also "less informative" than their full institution's name? CollegeSportsGuy 12:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that you're making statements like "Milwaukee has simply decided to do the same" and I haven't seen any evidence that they actually did make some kind of official decisions to change how they are referred to. And since many of the articles you have changed have nothing to do with NCAA atheletics, it seems odd to suddenly change "...received a degree from University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee" to "...from UW-Milwaukee" since it is most likely that the degree itself states the former. If you want to change it for articles referring to sports events, that might make sense. Otherwise it seems in appropriate. --mtz206 (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you do any sort of looking at all? They refer to themselves singularly as Milwaukee all over their official university athletics site. I can easily provide a cite from Milwaukee's athletics site if you wish, one that is an official press release which also states unnacceptable names and abbreviations for the institution (which includes "Wisconsin-Milwaukee").

I'm wondering, since this is an encyclopedia, and therefore continuity is of utmost importance, if these updates are unnacceptable to you do you intend to revise all references of institutions by their choosen brand TEAM names in Wikipedia articles? Such as (in order of most recently changed) UT-Chattanooga's change to simply Chattanooga, UNC Charlotte's Charlotte, University of Alabama at Birmingham's UAB? I'm curious as to why you have a problem with just this one university. (I also see you live in outstate Wisconsin)

As far as degrees go, UCLA's degree's don't say UCLA, but article's about schools that have long, often confusing or clumsy names ALWAYS refer to the INSTITUTION'S preferred abbreviation, which is in this case UW-Milwaukee. That can also be found on their official athletics site AND university site.

I am most concerned that you seem to be automatically making this change in any article with any reference to UWM. See [2] and [3]. Your argument seems mostly based on their athletic web site and how they're referenced in NCAA tournaments, etc. But many of these articles have nothing to do with athletics, and it isn't obvious at all what "UW" refers to. The burden is on you to support making such a change, since I see no harm whatsoever in the current version of most of these articles to spell out the official name of the university. In short, why make the change at all? (We're not worried about # of characters here) --mtz206 (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, I see no reason to purposefully change a link to point to a redirect to the original link. --mtz206 (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand that the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee is often referred to as "Milwaukee" these days for purposes of athletics, but I see no reason for you to replace the proper, spelled-out version on tons of non-athletic related pages with the less specific and formal "UW-Milwaukee" which is only a redirect. --BaronLarf 17:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Howdy CollegeSportsGuy. Just to chime in here, the university name should be spelled out in full, at least initially, and abbreviations introduced afterwards. We should strive to make the encyclopedia as universally-understandable as possible (keeping a 'worldview' in mind). Thanks for contributing. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see and understand the WIKI's concern here. I stand corrected, a university's name should be spelled out at first mention in non-athletics articles.

Obviously for athletics-related articles, school's with longer, hyphenated names, such as the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, go by their preferred name (if applicable), even at first mention, i.e. Charlotte, Wisonsin, Minnesota, Virginia Tech, UAB, Indiana, Michigan, UCLA, etc.

I think we're all in agreement as to what is the standard now. Thanks guys! CollegeSportsGuy 06:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Noticed this revert of yours: [4], which is fine. But I question your edit summary that this is the "most commonly referred to name (by students, area residents, etc." One, you have no statistical evidence for such a claim, and two, I strongly suspect that if you polled 1000 people in Milwaukee, the most common term would be "UW-M." (I lived near the campus for 7 years). Just something to chew on. Cheers. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical references

I think the work you're doing is generally useful; however, I would be careful about changing pages which are strictly historical in nature. For example, at 1966 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament, we say that Texas Western won the title, and I would very strongly oppose any change to UTEP in that article... (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement on this point. I believe Milwaukee started referring to themselves as "Milwaukee" in the 1990's before they made any NCAA Div-I tournament, so I think we're safe in this case. CollegeSportsGuy 13:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

EDIT - Upon further research, it appears the NCAA uses old names of universities, but not old "team" names, in their records. Milwaukee did not change their university name like Missouri St. or UTEP did. Instead, they simply dropped the state university part of their name, exactly as UNC-Charlotte and UT-Chattanooga have done. These schools, that were in the past known by their full name for athletics, now appear listed by only their current athletics name for all past achievements as "Charlotte" and "Chattanooga". Milwaukee would therefore follow suit, as their athletics name has changed, but the university name remains the same. CollegeSportsGuy 07:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Names

Hi CollegeSportsGuy. I agree with the result of the neverending debate on school naming, and I know you're aware of the neverending UWM reverts. I do have a couple of points though that I'd like to hear your thoughts on:

1. What do we do with names from the past? For instance, when Missouri State was in the Mid-Con, they were Southwest Missouri State. Since in all Mid-Con records and context they were SWMS, shouldn't they be listed by that name in former members, with a note about their current name and of course linking to the current name of the school.
2. The acronyms are a little troubling to me. I understand that for most, especially in a Midwest context, UIC is University of Illinois at Chicago, but isn't that a little too abbreviated? When you get to initials like that, it could be a little confusing, for someone from Idaho with a regional campus using the same moniker or something.
3. I've still seen alot of branding for UWM calling them UWMilwakee, such as their huge ad at Miller Park. Are we sure that UWM is the best we can get? I just fear this branding push leading to nothing but IU's, UofI's, ISU (which there are MANY), etc. Thanks, Craig R. Nielsen 19:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Craig. I'd be happy to share my thoughts on this:

1. I've seen NCAA record books list school's by both their old names and their current names when referring to them prior to their name changes. I believe that the standard used is that if the actual university name was changed (i.e. Texas Western to UTEP, or SWMS to Missouri State), then the old name is used with a mention somewhere of the change to the team's present name. If the university name did NOT change, but merely altered its athletics name (i.e. to Charlotte, Chattanooga, Milwaukee) then the NCAA simply alters past references to reflect this, without any mention of the old name. This is likely due to it being unnecessary to list the old name, as the new one is clearly identified with the old one (being as it was part of it), and the university name did not actually change.
2. The acronyms in this case should not be troubling, as there is no other UIC, just as there is no other UAB. And you'd be hard pressed to argue that the University of Alabama-Birmingham is a more "national" university than is the University of Illinois-Chicago, especially when including other topics outside of athletics. These schools have every right to make their unique NCAA acronyms their primary athletics designation. This includes Milwaukee's acronym, UWM, but they happen to also prefer and now primarily use Milwaukee, whereas UIC and UAB prefer only their acronyms for all athletics references. I also agree with what a few other user's have mentioned: that sometimes the media fails to properly list these schools, some more regularly than others. That should have no bearing at all in this discussion, however, as it would make it practically impossible to decide which school's get listed by their chosen athletics name, and which do not.
3. The ad you refer to in the outfield of Miller Park is an ad for the university itself, hence why it directs viewers to the University's website (www.uwm.edu) and not the official athletics site. As you can see on the billboard (and in all other literature from the school) the preferred reference of the school is UW-Milwaukee, just like the University of North Carolina-Charlotte still prefers UNC-Charlotte when referencing the school itself. This all seems very consistent to me.

Hope this helps! CollegeSportsGuy 06:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks... sort of...

I appreciate your input about the timing of the UWM marketing change. The only suggestion I have if to use a less patronizing language on my user-page. I do not have a "lack of understanding" of the issue (in fact, I've been on your side on a number of conference pages to make sure institutions' marketing decisions are honored on wikipedia). I completely understand the differende betweeen "renaming" and "rebranding". Could I have made a better analogy? Maybe. But the point was that I am trying to accurately reflect each institution's appropriate name at the time of each specific tournament. That's all. All you needed to tell me was that the rebranding took place in 1999, before the 2004 NIT, and my response would have been, "Great. Thanks for correcting my mistake." I'm not trying to jump down your throat, because you make good and constructive edits on here, but I'm just trying to convey that being overly paternalistic about a simple and minor issue can rub other editors the wrong way. Thanks and no hard feelings. -- Masonpatriot 18:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Happydays.jpg)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Happydays.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Happydays.jpg listed for deletion

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Dodge SRT-4 ACR specs brochure.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dodge SRT-4 ACR specs brochure.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panthers and categories

I notice you created Category:Milwaukee Panther athletes, but there are no articles on any of the athletes. There is not even an article on the team itself (or any of the teams). Do you plan on writing any of these articles? If not, the category should be deleted. If you do not plan on writing any of the articles very soon, the category should probably be deleted until you do.

Also, a word about categorization. When you add the cat link at the bottom of the article, the words that go after the pipe don't control what the text looks like on the cat page, like normal wikilinks, it controls alphabetization, to make sure it shows up ont eh cat page under teh correct letter heading. For example, if you list Bill Clinton in a cat, after the pipe in the link in his article, it would be, "|Clinton, Bill". This will ensure that it shows up in the Cs and not the Bs.

If you ever want to link to a category, use the following syntax: Category:British stage actors. Notice the colon at the front of the link. If you don't have the colon, Wikipedia will assume that you just added the article to the category. Do this when you're talking about the cat on a talk page, or when you list a cat in a "See also." But you really don't have to list cats in See Alsos, because readers can follow categories directly to them. -Freekee 17:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US Cellular Arena

Hmm...I don't know, maybe because it was early-to-late. Sorry about that. 1ne 19:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)