Talk:University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Portal This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Wisconsin. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. If you give this article a rating or change a previous rating, please leave a short summary in the comments to explain the rating and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

• /Archive 1: to Nov 2006

[edit] Rankings

Somebody took out my edit in the Rankings section where I mentioned that among its alumni UWM boasts one Nobel laureate, Jack Kilby (MS, Electrical Engineering, 1950; 2000 Nobel Prize for Physics). I feel this is worthwhile putting in the Rankings section - not just the alumni section - since many rankings do factor in heavily the # of current and former Nobel laureate faculty and students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.137.41 (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Three dates on the seal, three dates in the infobox

As everyone who reads this stuff knows by now, the University puts all three dates on its seal because UWM is regarded as a successor to the University (Madison) which started in 1849, since one of the components that joined together to form UWM in 1956 was the University of Wisconsin's extension programs in Milwaukee. Since that is the position our articles take too (with separate articles for WSC-M, etc.), then we should be consistent. Use all three dates, as UWM does; or just one: then we get to argue about which one. --Orange Mike 00:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree it should be either one date or three, unless there's some other reason for the two. I'd go with one, but I certainly don't want to try to decide which, so maybe in the interests of harmony three is the go. Andrewa 01:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to consider the physical existence of UWM when we talk about the year it was established. I don't think it is right to say UWM was established in 1849 when UM-Madison openned for classes. Seal is the seal. It does not necessary indicate UWM's hisotry. The seal has 1849 probably because UWM's special status and role in Wisconsin's education. Miaers 21:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

So, what do you think belongs in the infobox? I was assuming you'd go for the single date of 1956, but your comments at Talk:History of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee#Revert boring intro have me puzzled. Andrewa 09:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There should be two numbers 1885 and 1956. I think the three numbers on the seal indicate the merger between the old University of Wisconsin (established in 1849) and the former Wisconsin State College of Milwaukee (established in 1885), which created the UW-Milwaukee in 1956. Most people consider UW-Madison and UW-Milwaukee as two schools. It is not appropriate to use 1849 as one of UWM's establishment year. Miaers 16:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There are three dates on the seal in the position in which you'd expect to find the foundation date. The seal is a citable source; Are there any citable sources that indicate there should be two dates in the infobox? Andrewa 17:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The external link of the article on UWM's history provides a source. It starts UW-Milwaukee's history from the Milwaukee State Normal School not the University of Wisconsin in Madison. This is how most people think of UWM's history. Miaers 17:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand why you have removed the other links from this section and others. But even this article you have selected mentions only one of the three dates on the seal, except indirectly (five years later). So it doesn't support the idea that 1885 is as important as 1956. Andrewa 18:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I've never said one number. I said two. UW-Milwaukee was created in 1956 and its predecossor dates back to 1885. Miaers 18:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Understood. But the source you have cited doesn't support your idea. Are there others? Andrewa 18:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

1956 was the year UWM was created. It definitely should be in the infobox. There is nothing wrong to have two numbers. UWM is now celebrating its 50th year. Does it qualify 1956 as a number that should be shown in the infobox? Miaers 18:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we all know you think this. But why, when the designers of the seal chose three numbers, do you only want two? Unless you can cite some authority, we should go with the seal designers, not with your unsubstantiated opinion. I'm sorry if that's harsh. Even if you can cite sources, we'd need to consider which is more authoritative. Or, alternatively, we could go with the normal convention, which is just to have one foundation date in the infobox. I gather you'd go for 1956, in that case? Andrewa 19:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You are not being consistent. You first want to put 3 numbers now just one number? Where does the "convention" come from. UWM was founded twice. There should be two numbers in the infobox. Miaers 19:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I have always said either one or three.

But that rather misses the whole point of this discussion, which is to improve the article. The aim should be to arrive at a consensus, which may involve both of us changing some of our views. If my views are wrong I'm keen to change them. One thing that helps me to do this is for you to provide information as to how you have formed your views, which you have done from time to time, thank you. But other times you just seem to repeat your view over and over, which isn't very helpful. Andrewa 06:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where to now

Miaers has now changed the infobox to the two dates he favours, for reasons that he has still to explain as far as I can see.

What do similar universities do? I had a look at other universities in the UW System, and also at one category of which UWM is a member (selected by guess work from its categories, I didn't know what it meant but it looked promising to provide some parallels).

The first seven universities in Category:Urban 13 universities all list a single founding sate in their infoboxes. The eighth, University of Illinois at Chicago, lists three. None of these seem to do what Maiers is suggesting, although all have histories that bear some similarities to UWM. Further on, University of Massachusetts Boston does list two dates, but specifies in the infobox what each of these mean, so neither date is blandly claimed as a date the university was founded.

Of the other twelve universities granting masters and/or doctoral degrees in the University of Wisconsin System, three have no infoboxes as yet. The others all list a single founding date. Several of these were founded as Normal Schools, similar to UWM, and all of these seem to list the founding date of the Normal School as the founding date of the University (at a rather quick look admittedly).

Why does UWM want to hide its history? I guess it's suffered most from the ambiguity created in 1956, when it was (ridiculously in my hindsight) absorbed into the then University of Wisconsin. The problem was not the merger, but the names. UW continued to mean Madison campus, which must continue to anger both people associated with UWM and with Madison. The ambiguity was addressed but not resolved in 1971, when University of Wisconsin ceased to officially have any meaning at all, but in practice both UW and UWM and many of their associated terms remained highly ambiguous, especially to outsiders such as myself (is the M in UWM for Milwaukee or for Madison?). Not good. A referendum at UWM earlier this year on changing its name to something less problematical seems to have highlighted the problems rather than resolving any of them.

So I guess that's one reason it's a hot issue here.

My goal in all of this is simply to make the articles accurate and informative, and that implies neither boring nor inconsistent. The jumping-off point of my involvement in this discussion was Maiers' removal of most of the introduction to History of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, replaced by a bland sentence that summarised his view of this history, and excluding both the graphic of the seal (which motivated the original and current introduction) and the first of the dates shown on it. I suggested we hold off on that pending a decision here. That decision IMO is still to be made, despite his latest edits to the infobox.

Where to now, I wonder? Andrewa 17:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the name of the institution, the results of the referendum were that most of the students who voted were in favor of a name change. However, the people who wanted to change to "Wisconsin State University" (ridiculously bucolic for an URBAN university) and "University of Milwaukee" (which actually makes sense and would entail the fewest cosmetic changes) couldn't get on the same page. Therefore, "University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee" got more votes than both. So the UWM administration (being the out-of-touch idiots that they are) interpreted the vote as proof that the students don't actually want the change. --Illwauk 08:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Athletics bloat

Would it be possible for somebody who cares more about this topic to help trim this section back, or put it into a separate article? It seems to get longer every month, to an extent that is beginning to overshadow the educational and research aspects of this university.--Orange Mike 15:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There already exists the Milwaukee Panthers article. Those contents should be moved to that article instead. Miaers 22:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Performing arts venues

What do you think, folks - "student life" or "campus"? --Orange Mike 20:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Student life is more appropriate. Most of the audience are students. Miaers 20:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image of City of Milwaukee

Curious [1]: how does the presence of an image of downtown Milwaukee illustrate a "close tie" between UW-M and the city. The text says such, but an image adds nothing. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

UWM has close ties with Milwaukee and is located in the city. Putting a photo of Milwaukee in the article helps the readers to get this. Miaers 02:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, don't you think the name of the university tips off readers that it is located in the city? Not to mention the first sentence of the article? I don't see how a random photo of downtown Milwaukee helps illustrate that. Do we need to place random images of Chicago in the University of Chicago article or images of Manhattan in NYU for readers to realize that these universities have ties to the cities in their name? I doubt it - this is superfluous. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Especially since UWM is nowhere near the picture in question... Cheers, PaddyM 03:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If you read the trivia section of UW-M, you can see it was one of the top 10 city univerisities in US and was also selected as one of the gems of Milwaukee. It is not just the name. The image was used to help accentuate this information. UW-Milwaukee has its water institute near downtown lakefront and its school of continued education and a couple of student residence halls in downtown. It is also planning to open a research park near downtown.Miaers 03:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read the trivia section. But you fail to explain how an image of downtown Milwaukee and Pere Marquette Park "accentuate" the fact that UW-M is considered a "gem of Milwaukee". My point remains: such an image is superfluous to such a statement. (Perhaps an image showing UW-M campus with downtown in the background would indicate some kind of relationship between the two, but this image fails to do that) --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter from which angle the photo is taken as long as the image is Milwaukee. Miaers 03:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You are missing my entire point. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It may not be a 100% perfect illustration, but it is relevant. It shouldn't be removed. Miaers 03:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, the image illustrates nothing other than what part of downtown Milwaukee looks like - it has nothing to do with UW-M. this discussion is moved here from my talk page--ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ZimZalaBim. You should not include an image from downtown Milwaukee in this article. Anyone who wants to see an image of Milwaukee from this article can easily click on the wikilink at the top of this article to get to the city's article. On the other hand, it would appropriate to include a single image of UWM in the Milwaukee article, for UWM is a landmark in Milwaukee. Royalbroil 14:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly concur. An aerial view of the East Side and downtown Milwaukee shot from just north of Sandburg Dorms, to put the University into a geographic context, would be relevant and useful; but not the illo just deleted. --Orange Mike 17:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this photo is inappropriate. Milwaukee is one of the subject discussed in the Trivia section. Adding a photo of Milwaukee City is more than appropriate. Miaers 18:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

By that logic, we should also find a photo of the New England Board of Higher Education to include, since they're mentioned. (See, mere mention of something isn't the criteria for including an image.). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I should say that Milwaukee is the second major subject discussed. Miaers 19:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, unless the photo has something to do with UWM, it is ridiculous to include it. I agree fully with OrangeMike/ZimZalaBim/Royalbroil. Cheers, PaddyM 03:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This fantastic aerial shot of the campus AND downtown skyline AND lakefront has been floating around different parts of cyberspace for a few years now. Unfortunately I am not familiar with the rules on imagery copyrights, etc. for use on Wikipedia, so I don't know if it could be resized and used for the article or not. I do know that UWM has used this shot in some of its various publications, promotional materials, and so forth. 172.134.64.166 21:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

[edit] Persistent edits by User:76.17.116.98

This is an encyclopedia. There is not need to mention that a particular building "can be accessed from the main campus through a 24-hour University Housing shuttle, MCTS Bus Route 21 that goes directly from RiverView to campus, and BOSS (the university shuttle service)." This content should not be re-added, but I do not want to violate WP:3RR by constantly reverting this IP. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)