Talk:University of Wisconsin/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Post-Move Stuff--Was "Done" 2 How many meanings 3 Flagship 4 Merge or rename 5 Current meanings revisited 6 New article 7 Requested move 7.1 Survey 7.1.1 Survey - in support of the move 7.1.2 Survey - in opposition to the move 7.2 Discussion 7.2.1 Other States University articles 7.2.1.1 Articles that go to an article about the main/flagship campus 7.2.1.2 Articles that go to a page about the University System 7.2.1.3 Articles that go to a Disambiguation Page 7.2.1.4 Articles that are "weird" for various reasons and don't apply 7.2.2 Thoughts about the above 7.3 Is the name really ambiguous? 7.3.1 Counterintuitive? 7.4 Articles about the main campus of a university system 8 Removed content 9 Proposal 10 ?? 11 Review? 11.1 New hatnote 12 University of Wisconsin Redirect

[edit] Post-Move Stuff--Was "Done"

Have a look at the new disambiguation page. Andrewa 02:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Work well done. A good solution to end this discussion. Miaers 16:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to explain what I did. The second statement actually is more confusing to this page than helpful. If someone were to click here and not actually get to the System page, they would think that only Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay and Parkside exist. Hardly a way to help solve the confusion. So, I eliminated that problem so that anyone who gets to the disambig page will be able to see all the campuses at System if that is their desire. Cheers, PaddyM 22:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There are three bullets there. Each has different meanings. This is what a disambig page supposed to be. Please don't delete stuff from this page. Miaers 16:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The second bullet makes absolutely no sense. Can someone please explain it? I've explained why it doesn't belong but no one has explained why it does. Cheers, PaddyM 16:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that obvious. The second bullet is for the University of Wisconsin before the University of Wisconsin System was created. Miaers 16:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone really remember those three or four unis being called the University of Wisconsin collectively? It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to have the second set in there. I could understand a re-wording saying how the University of Wisconsin became ambigious at that time, or something of the ilk, but all of those being called the "University of Wisconsin"? Madmaxmarchhare 17:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be based on whether you remember it or not. It is just a fact. University of Wisconsin became ambiguous even when UW-Milwaukee was created. The second bullet is to show these information. There is nothing wrong, not to mention confusing. Miaers 18:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Miaers, I'm not sure if this word "fact" means what you think it means ;-). It's _confusing_ whether you think it is, or not, Miaers. Again, we're got some strange issue with "Miaers being the last word on something that Miaers has any word about." It's confusing to me, and it appears, even tho you want to ignore it, cuz it doesn't fit in your world, that others are too. Was it just that all the schools were named "University of Wisconsin-Something" that makes it so that the University of Wisconsin, alone, referred to all? I don't get it... Pretend we're all dumber than you are, Miaers (oh, wait.. umm... n/m), and make it make sense... Madmaxmarchhare 18:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "being the last word". I have never prevented anyone from talking. Everyone is free to talk, including me. University of Wisconsin-something does make University of Wisconsin ambiguous. That's why we create a disambig page here, doesn't it? Miaers 18:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I had a question in my post, can you answer it for me so that I can better understand the situation and the "facts" as they are? It was: Was it just that all the schools were named "University of Wisconsin-Something" that makes it so that the University of Wisconsin, alone, referred to all? Madmaxmarchhare 19:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether you think it's confusing or not, the two-way disambiguation is inaccurate. So I suggest you leave the third option there. Rephrase it if you must. But again I preach caution. You seem to be trying to guess how someone without the knowledge you have will get on. I'm such a person, so perhaps my opinion should be counted?

And please think hard about whether all this rephrasing is really improving things. For example, someone (I don't care who) has added ...and is now the flagship campus of the University of Wisconsin System... to the first option. As two people who obviously care about the reputations of these universities, don't you think that sort of cheerleading is a bit out of place here? Just a suggestion. Andrewa 18:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's that, but I'm not quite sure what you're asking. The important question is: What do English speakers (native and otherwise) mean when they say University of Wisconsin?

My conclusion was that it can be several things, depending on the context. If for example we're discussing a current request for funding, it probably means University of Wisconsin System. If we're discussing someone who graduated in 1900, it probably means University of Wisconsin-Madison. And if we're discussing someone who graduated from University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee in the 1960s, it means something else again. I expect those with first-hand knowledge of the system can provide better examples. Andrewa 01:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still do not understand the second bullet. It is not accurate to call the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, Green Bay, Parkside and Madison. If we are going to use the disambig page, it is accurate to name all the schools as they are added, which is what the second bullet point is doing, which, instead of showing a need for the disambig page, redundantly explains the information on the University of Wisconsin page. There needs to be a better explanation of why this should stay, or why everything Miaers says has to be true. Cheers, PaddyM 17:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How many meanings

I originally said at least three, it was then changed to two several times and finally back to three. I'm not convinced it's exactly three, so let's try the phrasing most commonly used on disambiguation pages, which is several. Andrewa 03:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I am the one who originally switched it to two meanings. Having received no valid reason from anyone why it should remain at three, I am going to switch it back. The second bullet point is confusing at best, and reiterates the lack of reason behind the disambig page in the first place. Cheers, PaddyM 20:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You've received numerous replies, but apparently you don't regard any of them as valid. Why you regard them as invalid is a mystery to me.

Let me ask you a question (which I implied in one of my previous replies). Suppose someone graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee campus of the University of Wisconsin in 1970. Which of your two meanings does University of Wisconsin have in this context? Andrewa 21:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand this question. The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee was just that as far as I can tell. It was its own school with its own name, and no modifier as to being "of" the University of Wisconsin. Madmaxmarchhare 22:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the article at University of Wisconsin System, in 1970 the University of Wisconsin consisted of four campuses, Madison plus three that had been added in the 1950s and 1960s. Is that correct? Andrewa 02:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know off-hand if that is correct, but my point is that why add a bullet point for that piece of information. You could just as easily then add another point for each year a campus was added to the system, which completely defeats the purpose of the page. Which is why I propose dropping the second point and only listing two disambig links. I don't see why Miaers opposes this and, frankly, since Miaers is the only one, I don't see why it remains. Cheers, PaddyM 03:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should find out, because if it is correct, then you're wrong about the Milwaukee campus not being part of the University of Wisconsin in 1970, if that's what you're saying.

On the other hand, if you're just trying to make the disambig look trivial, in the hope that we'll then agree to replace it with the redirect you wanted all along, then please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Andrewa 06:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how you can accuse me of disrupting anything. I made one switch, explained myself on the talk-page, and then it was immediately reverted by someone who hasn't even contributed to this discussion. The disambig page is trivial, but you haven't seen me changing it back, have you?

My point still stands that the second point is meaningless in the context of the page. It does not include a timeline (some years only) and does not even explain itself with regards to the actual page. Cheers, PaddyM 15:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Your point does not stand at all. The goal of a disambiguation page is navigation, to allow people to easily get to the article that they want. Any content is put there for this purpose.

Your points have been consistently irrelevant. You now go from wanting a minimalist page, with only two points, to a timeline. Perhaps, the best answer is somewhere in the middle?

And that leads me to ask, what are you trying to achieve here? At the risk of not assuming good faith, the obvious answer is, you don't want a disambiguation page at all, and never have. You have always wanted to use a redirect to promote your POV. Andrewa 23:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, where in the world did this come from? I took you to be of higher calibre than this. Why don't you take a break, come back in a few weeks, and if you don't like what you see, make some changes. Madmaxmarchhare 00:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I call them as I see them fall. Sorry if I've given any offense. But I really don't see what the problem is, and I do see my arguments being ignored rather than answered.

So that's where it's coming from. Andrewa 00:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flagship

Our article at flagship reads in part:

The phrase flagship campus or flagship university is often used with reference to state university systems in the United States

but later adds (in a quotation):

The use of the term is seen by some as elitist and boastful. It is viewed by many, in the context of the politics of higher education, as "politically incorrect."

That's certainly the way it appears to me. In the world context of Wikipedia, I'd add that it seems inaccurate to those of us outside of the USA. Again, our flagship article notes regarding the primary meaning of flagship:

"flagship" is fundamentally a temporary designation

which IMO underlines the local and rhetorical nature of its usage in the context of American universities.

I don't want to fall into the same trap of confusing my own feelings with the facts. But as an outsider to the system, seeing the term flagship on a disambiguation page suggests to me, perhaps unfairly, that the alumni of the university in question aren't good at making the distinction between the facts and their own opinions.

The term is probably appropriate in an article, where it can be explained and is in context. But on a disambiguation page, we should try especially hard to use neutral terms. Andrewa 00:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree on this point. Flagship in the context of the page is used to describe the largest and most commonly known campus of the system. With this designation, users from around the world will be able to choose Madison instead of going to the system page for the information they desire. Cheers, PaddyM 17:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would they do that? What information is the word flagship supposed to convey to them?

By all means say it's the largest or oldest, or the seat of administration, or all three.

Most commonly known is a bit more difficult. As evidenced by prior discussion, there are other opinions on that! Andrewa 20:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats not true at all. In none of the conversations did anyone disagree with the fact that Madison is the most commonly known campus of the system. I find the bias against Madison to be just as funny as you believe the bias toward Madison is. PaddyM 23:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The goal is to remove bias in either direction. So, you're saying that there's no field in which other campuses would be better known? Madison in your view is best known in every academic field, every sport, every other area of interest? Andrewa 00:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In that I seem to be the only editor who finds flagship an inappropriate term, I will concede the point. I am however adding a wikilink from the disambig to flagship, and will see whether we can update the article there to clarify exactly what is meant by it in this context.

Thanks for a very vigorous debate! Andrewa 20:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge or rename

Hmmmm, exactly what did happen in 1956?

The article at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee reads in part:

In 1955, the Wisconsin state legislature passed a measure to merge the Wisconsin State College of Milwaukee into University of Wisconsin to create a Milwaukee campus at its site.

But, the disambiguation page has been changed to read:

The University of Wisconsin became ambiguous with the subsequent renaming of several of the state's universites beginning in 1956 with the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee campus..

I've cleaned up the grammar, format and spelling mistakes this edit introduced. But I need some guidance as to the content. Was it a rename, or a merge? Andrewa 20:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The Milwaukee campus was a merger between two independent academic entities. Not sure about the other two. Miaers 22:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

From a distance, that's the way it looks to me too.

I'm afraid my theory above, that this is deliberate disruption, is still the only credible explanation I can find. I suppose the alternative is that the editors in question really believe what they have been writing, but that seems quite unlikely to me. And perhaps the spelling error in university was just a slip of the finger. And perhaps not.

I guess it's no great problem. Maybe I should leave it to the alumni of the institutions concerned. Andrewa 02:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Andrew, people disagree with you and I slip on the keyboard and you're thinking conspiracy is the only credible explanation? Take a break, will ya? Madmaxmarchhare 07:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Not conspiracy. But it does seem odd (and sad) that contributors with so much interest in a subject area would have so little interest in making their contributions accurate. See also above I don't know off-hand if that is correct.... Andrewa 11:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry we're not as good as you, Andrew.. we didn't mean to make you cry, really... The "only credible explanation I can find"? Take a break, get yourself together, and begin the fight another day... really, you need some time off. Madmaxmarchhare 15:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of who is better than who. It's just a matter of getting the best possible content for the encyclopedia.

I'm afraid I don't regard your personal advice as all that useful to me. Thanks for the thought, sort of.

Now, what should we do about the inaccurate content currently in the article namespace, do you think? Andrewa 19:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Usually, people refer to the UW before 1971 as the former University of Wisconsin. I think it is more appropriate to have some wording like "The former University of Wisconsin which included Madison(1849), Milwaukee (1956), Green Bay (1968) and Parkside (1968) campuses. " Miaers 20:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. In fact, that wording might enable us to combine the first and second bullet points into something like:

• The former University of Wisconsin which included Madison (1849), Milwaukee (1956), Green Bay (1968) and Parkside (1968) campuses.

The main problem with that might be that it leaves out any mention of the current flagship campus, which doesn't bother me but did some others. Andrewa 01:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The new entity, UWM, was created and put under the UW System (which until that time had had only the Madison campus and the extension offices to worry about) in 1956. It consisted of the former Wisconsin State College-Milwaukee (f/k/a Milwaukee State Teachers College, f/k/a Milwaukee Normal School) with its East Side campus, plus the downtown operations of the University of Wisconsin's extension service. So it was a merger, not just a rename; but the main part of the new entity (in terms of student count, hours of instruction, etc.) was the original components of the old WSC-M. But Miaers is the only person I've ever encountered in my life who says that in 1971 "The University of Wisconsin" meant the four campuses together, rather than either the place in Madison, or else the UW System (which latter is normally referred to under that name).--Orange Mike 03:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I said before 1971. Miaers 03:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion, Orange Mike. So, what do you think University of Wisconsin meant in, say, 1970? Andrewa 06:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Same as it still does. To most people, the kind of people who would be using this encyclopedia, it means that place in Madison. If you press them on it, they will say, "Oh, yeah, I guess all of the UW-thisandthat schools are 'Universities of Wisconsin'; but plain old 'University of Wisconsin' means UW: the Badgers." It is possible that diplomas may still have said generically 'University of Wisconsin'; I neither know nor care, since I don't think that legalisms impressed much of anybody in 1970 or now. UWM had abandoned the red &white and the Cardinals nickname long since, in favor of the Panthers and the black & gold.--Orange Mike 14:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current meanings revisited

From the above discussion:

Same as it still does. To most people, the kind of people who would be using this encyclopedia, it means that place in Madison. If you press them on it, they will say, "Oh, yeah, I guess all of the UW-thisandthat schools are 'Universities of Wisconsin'; but plain old 'University of Wisconsin' means UW: the Badgers." It is possible that diplomas may still have said generically 'University of Wisconsin'; I neither know nor care, since I don't think that legalisms impressed much of anybody in 1970 or now. UWM had abandoned the red &white and the Cardinals nickname long since, in favor of the Panthers and the black & gold.--Orange Mike 14:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Some important things raised here.

Most important is that University of Wisconsin is currently used to mean that place in Madison, ie the original Madison campus. That isn't reflected by the current disambig, and should be. It's a very good point, and something only the locals can tell us.

With this as background, I'm now suspecting that the disambig should look something like:

• When referring to a single campus, University of Wisconsin means University of Wisconsin–Madison. It was the official name of this campus from its founding in 1848 until 1956, and remains in common usage in sporting and similar contexts.

• In administrative and similar contexts, University of Wisconsin has been an informal name for the University of Wisconsin System since its founding in 1971.

• From 1956 until 1971, University of Wisconsin was the official name of the institution formed by the merger of the Madison campus with Milwaukee campus (1956), followed by Green Bay (1968) and Parkside (1968).

The fact that Madison is referred to as UW as opposed to UWM for Milwaukee is another good point, supported by the current articles on these campuses and supporting the contention that University of Wisconsin still means Madison in some contexts at least.

The appeal to most people misses the point IMO. We want everyone to be able to clearly see which article they want, including people who have no idea how the American university system works. That's the purpose of the disambiguation page. Andrewa 09:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

In that nobody speaks, I'll put the above version up and see how it goes. Andrewa 15:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New article

You might like to have a look at State University systems of the USA. Contrary to some comments above, many of us are interested in the history of these names, and even their legal status.

But there's lots of room for growth of this new stub, and of course I may have some of it wrong. That's how wikis work. Andrewa 23:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

But the new version is wrong! What the UW Extension merged with here in 1956 was not the "Milwaukee campus" of anything; it was Wisconsin State College-Milwaukee, a campus of the then-separate Wisconsin State Colleges system!--Orange Mike 19:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are discussing the new version of the disambig page, rather than the new article at State University systems of the USA, am I correct in this assumption?

As I read the current disambig page, what it says is not inconsistent with what I think you are saying above. But what you are saying, again as I read it, is not entirely self-consistent. First you say it was not the "Milwaukee campus" of anything, then that it was a campus of the then-separate Wisconsin State Colleges system. I would have thought that, under those conditions, the meaning of Milwaukee campus as a (perhaps unofficial) way of identifying the campus concerned was not a problem. Perhaps American English differs to my dialect on this point.

But this is how wikis work. What should the disambig say, to be accurate, intelligible to American readers, and not too confusing to anyone? Andrewa 21:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Good answer. This is progress IMO. Andrewa 08:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to point out Wisconsin State College system in the disambig page. What's the point of it? Readers obviously know from the name itself that Wisconsin State College-Milwaukee came from outside UW. On the other hand, there should be enough emphasis on how the present entity, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee is linked to University of Wisconsin, the name of this disambiguation page. Miaers 16:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I see from the Wisconsin State Universities article that many of them actually had never called "Wisconsin State College-___". I think Wisconsin State College system is only something existed in Orange Mike's dreamy memory. Miaers

Read the books, newspapers, government documents, etc. of the time. There was a Wisconsin State Colleges (later Wisconsin State Universities) System with its own Board of Regents, etc. That was merged with the UW and its four campuses in 1971, against considerable resistance.--Orange Mike 19:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It sounds to me as though you have lots of interesting material here for an article on the history of something. Andrewa 06:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Not of sufficient general interest for a Wikipedia article; and too recent, with too many tender sensibilities of persons still living involved, for an article in a historical journal (I'm a grad student in UWM's History Department).--Orange Mike 14:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That explains a lot! But Wikipedia isn't quite as restricted as a historical journal. While we don't publish original research of any sort, we do publish current events based on sources such as newspapers, and biographies of living persons.

I'm not saying you or Miaers should write this article. Just be prepared for the likelihood that others will. Andrewa 19:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Nah, it would be OR. More to the point, I'm not getting paid for any of this.--Orange Mike 20:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

None of us are getting paid for this. The reward is more to leave Wikipedia, and even the world itself as a consequence, in a better condition than we found it. If you contribute to Wikipedia for other reasons than that, I'm afraid you are likely to find it a rather negative experience long term. But the good news is, no matter why you come here in the first place, it's very easy to catch the vision once you are involved. See user:Andrewa/creed. Andrewa 15:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, agreed; didn't start doing it for the pay. But an article such as you suggested, if it were done right, would be the sort of original research I do for pay, or as a grad student. I'll do my Wikipart for the Wikicause; but not at the expense of my paid writing (although I should be working on that right this moment).--Orange Mike 16:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised at the claim that it would be original research as understood in Wikipedia. Historical (and any other) articles don't need to come from a single source, in fact it's much better that they don't. And there are many possible sources. Combining the info from several sources is OK. Using this compilation to draw new conclusions is not. It's a fine line sometimes, but in practice not as difficult as it might sound in theory.

What you choose to contribute yourself is an entirely different matter. Beware wikiholism, you sound like a prime candidate. Andrewa 16:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an ambiguation page, which helps readers to know what institutions can possibly be University of Wisconsin. As I pointed out the name (Wisconsin State College-Milwaukee) itself explains all. We need to tidy up the sentences to let people better know how UW-Milwaukee is related to University of Wisconsin. That is one of the purposes of this disambig page. Miaers 19:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The name only explains all if you have a certain amount of prior knowledge. Try to put yourself in the position of someone without this knowledge. (It can be quite a challenge.) Andrewa 15:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

How about "From 1956 until 1971, University of Wisconsin was the official name of the institution consisted of the Madison campus, Milwaukee campus (acquired in 1956), Green Bay campus (created in 1965) and Parkside campus(created in 1968)." Alainlin 16:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd put University of Wisconsin in italics, and say consisting or which consisted, (and of course preserve the wikilinks to the various campus articles) but other than that this wording looks good to me. Andrewa 17:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Rather than "acquired" I'd say "under the UW regents since 1956" or something like that. But otherwise, it seems OK.--Orange Mike 18:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "merged in 1956" sounds better. Alainlin 20:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. There's a subtle but significant difference between acquired and merged. I guess there was a lot of political talk about which it was, but it sounds to me as if acquired might be closer, if a pre-existing board of regents who already controlled one campus ended up with two. Or were the boards merged too? Andrewa 02:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The old WSC-M was under the State Colleges System regents; the new merged entity was under the UW regents (who until then had controlled only the one campus plus the various Extension offices) in 1956. However, the leadership of WSC-M remained in complete control of their local institution, which is the main reason I don't like the implications of the term 'acquired': autonomy was not lessened, it was subject to a different board of regents, but not subordinated to the institution on Bascom Hill. 'Acquire' implies a subjugation to the Madison institution. The boards were not to merge until the 1971 creation of the UW System.--Orange Mike 03:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What happens to the boards doesn't determines whether a deal is a merger or acquisition. There can be a board reshuffle in case of an acquisition. And in the case of a merger, the afterward board is not just a simple combinantion the boards of parties involed. Miaers 16:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What happens to the board is just one consideration.

I'm perservering with this because I'm guessing there are many similar (but not identical) histories of US state universities, and that we'll have the same trouble with all of them: Those who have the local knowledge also have some strong vested interests. Andrewa 00:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

To avoid controversial wording, I think it is better to keep the third bullet point as simple as possible. Something like "The former University of Wisconsin (1956-1971) included the Madison campus (1848), Milwaukee campus (1956), Green Bay campus (1965) and Parkside campus(1968)." looks good to me. Miaers 16:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks bad to me, tho. Still have the same ambiguity problems, and anyone looking at that paragraph would ask "what in the world does that mean?" Madmaxmarchhare 16:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The former University of Wisconsin is commonly used when people talking about the creation of the University of Wisconsin System, which was created by the merger of the former University of Wisconsin and the Wisconsin State University system in 1971. Maybe it makes more sense if we make this the second bullet instead of the third. Miaers 16:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, Miaers; I've done it.--16:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Orange Mike

[edit] Removed content

I'd like to revert to this version as a basis for futher edits. The content that has been removed was the subject of a great deal of discussion previously. We seem to have gone backwards. Andrewa 22:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Dekimasu moved University of Wisconsin without any regards to the previous discussions. This move definitely should be moved back. Miaers 23:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If this page is moved to "University of Wisconsin," then it should be reverted. If this page is kept as "University of Wisconsin (disambiguation)", then it should be left alone. – Lordmontu _{(talk) • (contribs)} 04:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Under either heading, the current version is appallingly poorly written; the prior version to which Andrewa links should be used. --Orange Mike 15:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's arguably inaccurate, and definitely uninformative. For example, whether the largest is Madison or Milwaukee seems to depend a bit on how you measure it, and likely to change from time to time.

There may be room to trim the former version down a bit, and there's definitely room for discussion as to why it obeys WP:IGNORE rather than WP:DAB in a couple of ways. Let's have this discussion. In the case of the move, I suggest we wait for WP:RM to run its course (two wrongs don't make a right). But I think we have rough consensus here to revert the content. Andrewa 20:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The "which is largest" only appears to be in dispute. Total enrollment at Madison is definitely largest; total Wisconsinite enrollment is largest at UWM. --Orange Mike 00:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure we can find other statistics either way if we look. Andrewa 04:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

While what's there now certainly isn't perfect (that's how Wikipedia works), disambiguation pages aren't meant to be mini-articles of their own, just to point the way to the article people are looking for. The page should comply with WP:MOSDAB. —Mira 06:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. But the current disambig IMO fails to point the way very effectively. If, for example, I was following up a reference to a conference paper from 1970 whose author was just identified as being from the University of Wisconsin, this would be no help at all in identifying which article I wanted for further information. There should be enough information in the disambig to clearly identify which meaning is intended in foreseeable circumstances; No more certainly but no less either. (Sigh) we've been through all of this several times before. Andrewa 15:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

In light of the fact that will not likely achieve a consensus on this matter, and it seems that we are getting dangerously close to some personal attacks on each other, I would like to propose a solution. My recommendations are based on the prevailing opinion in this poll.

1. Place a hard redirect of University of Wisconsin to UW-Madison.
2. Delete the disambiguation page.
3. Add the history of the combined campuses to their respective articles and, if warranted, create a new page describing the combined systems.
4. Place "University of Wisconsin" redirects here. Please see University of Wisconsin System for the entire public university system. at the top of the UW-Madison article for clarity (or something that is written a little better).

Questions, comments, etc.? Cheers, PaddyM 01:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I only agree with deleting the "University of Wisconsin (disambiguation)" page. There is no other universities ever created such thing. I strongly oppose to other propositions because UW-Madison is not that strong to have a hard redirect of "University of Wisconsin" to UW-Madison due to various reasons pointed out above. University of Wisconsin should be either an ambiguous page or redirected to the University of Wisconsin System papge. Miaers 01:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleting the disambiguation page would presumably go through WP:AfD, and I would oppose it there. ISTM that the term University of Wisconsin is ambiguous, and that's exactly what disambiguation pages are for. But it might get through; Have a go is my advice. That's what AfD is for.

I also oppose pointing the unqualified page University of Wisconsin to either University of Wisconsin System or University of Wisconsin-Madison. At the risk of oversimplifying, the former is generally what Milwaukee people want, and the latter what Madison people want. It's a mess: For example UW and UWM are both ambiguous and confusing to outsiders; And evidently it's the subject of much local debate. But Wikipedia is not the place to promote any particular solution. Andrewa 15:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand what the problem is here...you sanctioned a poll, the results are in, and you both are still writing the same things in response to the proposal. Wasn't the point to get some sort of consensus and then proceed with what that was? PaddyM 16:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The poll only applies to the move proposal. If you want to delete the disambiguation page, for example, it will need to go to AfD. Andrewa 10:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And I see it now has, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Wisconsin (disambiguation). Interesting that it's claimed there that a consensus has been reached here. Andrewa 10:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, Andrew, the disambig page won't matter if there is a redirect at University of Wisconsin and we place a notice at the top of the Madison page informing people of the University of Wisconsin System page. At that point, why not just put the relevant history about the combined campuses into the article about the system, since that is where it belongs anyway?

And, clearly, since you and Miaers are clearly never going to understand that NO ONE refers to UWM as the University of Wisconsin (either in Milwaukee or otherwise), I am having trouble seeing the benefit of continuously arguing with you over the exact same points. Cheers, PaddyM 16:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, who is suggesting that UWM was ever referred to as University of Wisconsin? I wasn't. University of Wisconsin was the official name of UW-Madison for a long time, then it was the official name of the merged institution for a short time, and now it's the official name of nothing. It's always remained an unofficial name of UW-Madison, and there's an understandable possessiveness towards the name from Madison associates, supported by some UWM associates who want UWM renamed. I'm a long way from this, my perspective is of someone who has no stake in any of these politics, but who wants Wikipedia to be a place where others who are similarly naive can easily find the information we want.

That's all. As I said long ago, I'm happy for University of Wisconsin to redirect to either the Madison or UW System articles, with a suitable link to the other at the top of the target page. The idea of a disambig was originally to solve the problem that neither of these solutions seemed acceptable, and I wanted us to move on. Sadly, that hasn't happened.

I'm less than happy about the redirect to the disambig, that looks silly to me (why not just have the disambig at the unqualified name). But it's no big deal. I'd prefer the disambig because I fear that without it we'll just go down this same path again and again (this is round four by my count), and because I think it's by far the easiest way for an outsider such as myself to get quickly to the article we want. But the current disambig is pretty useless IMO, it simply doesn't give the information you'd need for this.

The AfD is the way to go. If it gets support, then we'll go with it, and no hard feelings I hope. Similarly, the RM seems unlikely to gain consensus. That's unfair in some ways, as it means that the move that didn't go through the proper channels will not be reversed owing to a lack of consensus. If I'd raised the RM formally in the first place, we'd have the opposite situation. But one of my principles is, if you can't get consensus, it doesn't really matter which way the decision goes. Fairness is not the bottom line, building an encyclopedia is. I won't lose sleep over it. Suggest you don't either. Andrewa 17:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all parts of PaddyM's proposal. I wouldn't mind either way about deleting or keeping the disambiguation page. It is helpful in describing the differences between the different University of Wisconsin terms to people unfamiliar with the system, but it isn't necessary. – Lordmontu _{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I like PaddyM's proposal also. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I support PaddyM's proposal to move as stated. Madmaxmarchhare 23:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This proposal is technically wrong. University of Wisconsin can't be redirected to two articles. 63.119.226.66 00:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite right IMO. That's what a disambiguation page is for. But we appear to be in the minority here, and the disambig is likely to be deleted. Andrewa 14:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The disambiguation page should be built in the "University of Wisconsin" page. It doesn't matter whether "University of Wisconsin (disambiguation)" is deleted or not. Miaers 14:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the proposal eliminates the need for for the disambiguation page - thats the whole point. University of Wisconsin will only redirect to UW-Madison and that removes the supposed double-redirect. As long as this discussion can be preserved in the event that someone else tries to alter the redirect, we shouldn't have any problems. Its as we've all said - there is no need for the disambiguation page as the term University of Wisconsin is far from ambiguous. Cheers, PaddyM 17:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Paddy, you can keep saying it all you want if you really believe it; but that doesn't mean "we've all said it"! I am by no means the only one who has said, because it is true, that the term is much more ambiguous than you are willing to admit. The drive to eliminate the DAB page seems to be driven by a desire to deny that simple fact. --Orange Mike 18:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Paddy. You are creating possible "double-redirect" here by proposing to direct "University of Wisconsin" only to UW-Madison. Former "University of Wisconsin" is already used in UW System, UW-Milwaukee related articles and even more in the future new articles. It is not appropriate to direct these "University of Wisconsin" to UW-Madison. The previous disambiguation works just fine and should be reverted. Miaers 18:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Miaers, after reviewing University of Wisconsin-Madison in its current form, I see no reason to recreate the disambiguation page at any location. An otheruses tag referring to the University of Wisconsin system is in place and that should suffice. Now that the disambiguation page has been deleted, this is the best solution. I also note that no one has had access to this page for a few days, because it was deleted at its location where it was packaged with the dab page. Therefore I hope that you will reread the discussion before readding the disambiguation page again. It appears to be against consensus. Dekimasuが... 16:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

To all: sorry to create a clutter in the edit history (though it wouldn't have happened if anyone had told me there was a debate going on about my edit!). I am glad that this solution will help fix the 1200 ambiguous links that were attached to the disambiguation page, as that is what I was trying to clean up in the first place, and the primary use claim was the only part of the matter that I was really concerned with. This solution is the best one possible. Thank you for your time. Dekimasuが... 17:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Dekimasu, I think you didn't read this discussion in detail. There is a "double redirect" problem here. University of Wisconsin was once the name of the institution formed by Madison, Milwaukee, Greenbay and Parkside. There are University of Wisconsin links in UW system and UW-Milwaukee related articles. This is not appropriate to direct these University of Wisconsin to UW-Madison nor to UW System, because UW-Madison was only part of it and UW System didn't exist at the time when this institution existed.

Also, there was a concensus on the orginal disambiguation before and I don't think we have a concensus on directing University of Wisconsni to UW-Madison here in the new discussion, even if we don't consider the "double redirect" problem. I've put comments on those favoring this proposal. They didn't provide convincing enough reasons.

Disambiguation page doesn't break any links. All possible Universty of Wisconsin in all circumstances are all listed on the page. On the contrary, direct University of Wisconsin to UW-Madison break links on UW System and UW-Milwaukee related articles. I really don't think there is anything good about the arrangement you made. How can it provide good solutions to other disambiguation pages? By the way, deleting disambiguation page is not a solution of any disambiguation problem at all. Miaers 18:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

There are no double redirects - I just double-checked. At any rate, intentional links to disambiguation pages are denoted by links to "Page (disambiguation)", and there are none of those links. The idea, I believe, is that the page for the University of Wisconsin system is serving the same purpose that the disambiguation page was meant to repair. Can you show me an example of a page that has a problem under this proposal? Dekimasuが... 18:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

These are some of the examples: Second paragraph of University of Wisconsin System, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee#Early history, History of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.Miaers 18:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the examples. The foolproof argument is checking the links to this page, and they are 99% to University of Wisconsin-Madison. Those are grounds for a primary use argument under WP:DAB. Otherwise, every time someone creates a link to University of Wisconsin, someone from WP:DAB or WP:DPL has to go through and check it - forever. Those kinds of things should be reserved for occasions when only a slight majority or a plurality of links go to one place. Otherwise it is creating unnecessary work for editors and unnecessary clicks for readers. In reality it will be much easier to go through and fix the 1% of links that are like the ones you've shown me, and I will fix those now. Dekimasuが... 18:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you. There is no broken links to fixed when we use the disambiguation page. By the way how can you fix the broken links I just pointed out if you direct University of Wisconsin to UW-Madision? UW System didn't exist when that institution existed. Also I don't think the disambiguation page provide any trouble to the readers, because the disambiguation page is educational. Miaers 18:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I think I see the problem here. I have removed those links for now, but the thing is, a disambiguation page would not have helped those links. If you want to create a stub article for University of Wisconsin (historical) or something along those lines, that's perfectly fine, and you can send those types of links to it. Otherwise, even if you sent people to a disambiguation page, they wouldn't have any article to go to from it. Disambiguation pages are supposed to be populated by links, not text, and as such, the explanation of the historical University of Wisconsin could not be done in such a place anyway. Alternatively, the article on the current system could have a section on history explaining what the University of Wisconsin used to mean, and you can send piped sectional links there. This is not, strictly speaking, a topic for the University of Wisconsin space to cover, since it represents a little-known topic. Dekimasuが... 18:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If you create a University of Wisconsin (historical), that means it is ambibugous. You can't put this thing on the UW System page anyway. Besides I don't know how to write an article about this. The explanation on the old disambiguation is very clear and brief. There is nothing wrong with it. You are making a mistake here. You are not provding any solutions. Miaers 18:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

What is ambiguous about University of Wisconsin (historical)? It is a situation for a redirect5 tag, if anything. I think you may be unfamiliar with WP:DAB and/or WP:DPL. As far as including text on dab pages, see WP:DAB. As far as "no broken links to fix": please read WP:DPL. "Ideally, Wikipedia articles should not link to disambiguation pages (with rare exceptions where the ambiguity of a term is being discussed); instead links should go directly to the appropriate article. This page lists disambiguation pages that do have incoming links. Most of these need to be fixed." People from WP:DPL will come to this page, take the 1200 links that are meant to go to Madison, and change them all manually, a lot of work. Then no one will see the dab page anyway. That is the only result of having the dab page here. Or, we can fix the 10-15 pages that have problems like the ones you mentioned above. That is the shorter, and more permanent, solution. Dekimasuが... 18:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Finally, those links could all have been pointed to the dab page if it hadn't been deleted. It wouldn't have been correct (per my last couple of posts), but it would have been possible. Manually point 15 links or manually point 1200? That is the discussion. Dekimasuが... 18:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If you create University of Wisconsin (historical), that means "University of Wisconsin" is ambiguous, not University of Wisconsin (historical). And "University of Wisconsin" should be the disambiguation page to show these two article and other possible articles. I don't think you know what you are talking about. Anyway, the University of Wisconsin in the above examples need explanation from the disambiguation page, otherwise it is confusing in those articles. The old disambiguation page existed for quite while. It did not do any harm and nobody ever did anything you said. You are basically saying that creating a disambiguation page is wrong. But that is just your own opinion. Miaers 18:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I came here from WP:DPL to fix the links. If this is a dab page, will you fix the 1200 links? My opinion is still that it is better to manually retarget 15 links than to manually retarget 1200 (and in that proportion, forever), yes. Dekimasuが... 19:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

An ambiguation can only be fixed by a disambiguation page. There is nothing for you to fix if you use the old disambig page. Miaers 19:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest you check out University of Texas, University of California, etc. and others to see if they can help give an idea of how others have addressed this issue already. Every situation is different, of course, but don't reinvent the wheel either. - grubber 19:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Er, I guess someone already did that. My bad. - grubber 23:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

To stop this argument, I've created University of Wisconsin (former) article. University of Wisconsin should be an ambiguous page. Miaers 00:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  ??

Miaers - I am having trouble understanding your current revision. The result of the AfD was to delete the DAB page, which was done. Now, you have reinstated the DAB page, going against consensus to achieve your result. It seems that you consistently go against the grain wherever possible and are trying basically disrupting everyone else's edits simply to prove your own point . . . which, at this point, I no longer can even understand.

I have reverted the University of Wisconsin back the re-direct as we had come to that conclusion, and you can see numerous examples of people disagreeing with you, both here and on your talk page. Cheers, PaddyM 00:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The page deleted is University of Wisconsin (disambig). It doesn't mean University of Wisconsin should be directed to UW-Madison. Anyway, this name is ambiguous, even if you don't like it. Miaers 00:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I know you didn't believe me, but can't you trust the people we were talking with at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation? Members of that WikiProject work with disambiguation pages all the time, and all the time they decide whether things are ambiguous or not. They supported the solution as it stood, without a disambiguation page. Dekimasuが... 00:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

There are just too much POV here. There should be a disambiguation page to provide links to UW-Madison, University of Wisconsin (former) and University of Wisconsin System. There was a concensus on the disambiguation page before you moved this page unilaterally. Miaers 01:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thus I am now asking you to rely on the judgment of other editors which has, by and large, supported what I did. POV is the furthest thing from my mind in this case. I have no allegiance to the University of Wisconsin-Madison, or Wisconsin at all. This was a link-based, oil-the-system move. I have no problem with completely keeping my hands off the mouse as far as this page is concerned, if you will agree to listen to the several other editors who have been willing to present their input here. Please do not claim that I had bad intentions. Dekimasuが... 01:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Relevant discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Talk:University of Wisconsin. I will keep my paws off of this area because of objections to my involvement and because I will be in-transit for the next two days. Good luck. Dekimasuが... 01:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a technical problem. Not making University of Wisconsin a disambiguation page is burry the head in the sand. Miaers 14:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Miaers, I seriously suggest you give this a break. The disambig is gone, validly deleted according to the community-based processes that govern Wikipedia. I suspect that in the future there may be further discussion, but until and unless someone arrives with something new to say, there's nothing to be done about that IMO. Thanks for your efforts.

So concentrate instead on improving the various UW articles, or find another subject. There is lots to be done. Or, if you want some light relief, have a look at Unimpedia - which also preserves some of the disambig content of course (but not the history), just in case you need to link to it sometime. Alternatively, I suppose you could put a copy of it in your own user space, but I recommend against this, at best it could be challenged... and I certainly don't think you should try to recreate it in any other namespace. Not for the moment, anyway. Andrewa 17:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The deleted disambig page is a different article from the old one. Besides, there is a University of Wisconsin (former) now. It makes it more appropriate to make "University of Wisconsin" a disambig. We can also move University of Wisconsin (former) article to "University of Wisconsin" as an alternative. This subject may deserve an article instead of a disambig page. Anyway, leaving the status quo as it is is definitely wrong. Miaers 23:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The new article you've created is a good place to aim the links that you were worried about when you were talking with me earlier, but since it is not the main use of the term "University of Wisconsin", it should not go in this space. Did you end up reading WP:DAB? Dekimasuが... 13:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin (disambig) doesn't work and was deleted. We can either make University of Wisconsin a disambig or move University of Wisconsin (former) to University of Wisconsin. Maybe the second idea is better. Miaers 23:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Miaers, when someone types "University of Wisconsin" into the search box, what do you think he or she expects to see? Dekimasuが... 23:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for Miaers, but I suspect it depends on how much they know about the topic. Some folks will be looking for whichever University of Wisconsin they have heard about, which might be, say, UW-Richland Center or Oshkosh or Stout or... ; some will be looking for the place in Madison; some (historians, especially) might be looking for the former UW which had four campuses. (But, unlike Miaers, I am resigned to the inexplicable loss of the disambiguation page.) --Orange Mike 23:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I find User:Dekimasu's argument senseless. There are two articles titled "University of Wisconsin" in Wikipedia. And a solution should be provided to link these two. Miaers 00:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review?

I'd like to congratulate Miaers on the lateral thinking he's shown in creating the new page. And it does raise the question of whether the disambig could and should be reinstated. Basically, if there are only two meanings (former and Madison, I guess) then there's no need, a notice on the Madison article (or wherever else University of Wisconsin points to this week) is sufficient. If there's a third meaning (for example University of Wisconsin System) then we should list the disambig at deletion review citing this new information as the justification for the review. Some have previously argued that University of Wisconsin could mean University of Wisconsin System in current usage, so there may be a case. Andrewa 00:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Almost everyone agrees that "University of Wisconsin" can mean University of Wisconsin System. But I don't think it is appropriate to restore the deleted (disambig) page that the majority here don't want. All the "University of Wisconsin"s belong to one single entity. People shouldn't put them in two seperated articles. The disambiguation should be at University of Wisconsin. Alternatively, we can also do some adjustments on University of Wisconsin (former) and move it to University of Wisconsin. Does anyone agree or disagree with this idea? Miaers 01:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see how moving University of Wisconsin (former) to University of Wisconsin would make sense. The majority of people looking for something called the University of Wisconsin would be looking for one of the currently existing organizations (whether Madison, the system as a whole, or one of the other schools). I also wonder if it might be appropriate to merge the University of Wisconsin (former) article into University of Wisconsin System as part of a "history" section, which I note that article doesn't have currently, or perhaps create an article on the History of the University of Wisconsin or something like that. Just an idea. —Mira 01:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin (former) echoes the Wisconsin State Universities article. These two are different from UW System and aer written from different perspectives. They should coexist with the UW System article or its history article as many articles in Wikipedia do. Miaers 01:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No need for anything drastic here; just merge the former article with the Wisconsin State Universities article. That should solve all the problems. What we should definitely not do is move the former article to University of Wisconsin. That would create tremendous confusion. Cheers, PaddyM 01:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That article actually serves as an explanation for possible confusions. I think you need to read these two articles before making suggestions. Nobody would suggest moving University of Wisconsin (former) to Wisconsin State Universities. Miaers 02:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be bad to have the disambiguation page back and to change the tag at the top of the Madison page to an otheruses tag instead of directing people to the University of Wisconsin system. I'm sure if we agreed to do that here, Mailer diablo would be happy to undelete the page. I think the suggested merge is fine too. That information could really go in both of the articles as background information - both University of Wisconsin system and Wisconsin State Universities. The most important thing is to leave this redirect as-is, like the University of Texas page. As I've said before, this redirect was supported unanimously by multiple editors at WikiProject Disambiguation; the primary consideration is where people intend to go when they input search terms and make internal links. I'm not sure why we would ignore expert advice. Dekimasuが... 16:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dekimasu. I would lean towards merging the University of Wisconsin (former) article somewhere (although I'm not sure where), but restoring the disambig page would also work, as long as the University of Wisconsin redirect is left as-is. —Mira 18:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The crazy thing is, it seems generally agreed that the term is ambiguous. There isn't even any disgreement about what the most normal meaning is in current usage.

Sooner or later, surely someone will come along and say This is crazy... why don't we have a disambiguation page? And we'll be off again... Andrewa 02:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The thing I find the most interesting is that it is NOT generally agreed that the name is ambiguous. Miaers, Andrewa and Orangemike have asserted that claim, but it has been repeatedly disagreed with by a number of other editors. I find it curious that you keep saying there is agreement despite the fact that there is no evidence it exists.

Plus, you even contradict yourself by saying that there isn't disagreement in the normal useage (which is true - normal useage indicates that UW-Madison is the most unambiguous and normally used form for University of Wisconsin) and then continue to insist on the need for disambiguation. Cheers, PaddyM 03:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This might explain a lot. I don't think there is any contradiction in there being a most normal meaning and there being other meanings too. Are you saying that there is?

If that were the case, then very, very few terms would be ambiguous... this being a case in point. Andrewa 10:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe we're still doing this... Madmaxmarchhare 13:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is that there's still confusion over what the terms mean. Ambiguous simply means that there is more than one possible meaning. I'm not quite sure what PaddyM thinks it means, and I suspect from what he said above about me contradicting myself that he's using a different meaning... or possibly, hasn't really worked out what it means.

Don't lose sleep over it. There are longer running debates over smaller issues. Andrewa 08:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I never refer UW-Madison as "University of Wisconsin". Actually, I find it offensive that "University of Wisconsin" is directed to Madison. It seems that only Texas is doing this. Majority of large public university system here don't direct to the system first campus. Miaers 14:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New hatnote

What do people think of the current hatnote on the University of Wisconsin-Madison article? It provides links to both University of Wisconsin System and University of Wisconsin (former) without needing a disambiguation page. —Mira 22:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Cheers, PaddyM 23:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fine to put a hatnot that refers to two articles on the UW-Madison article. But "University of Wisconsin" shouldn't direct to UW-Madison. Also this hatnot doesn't eliminate the need of an disambig page in any sense. On the contrary, I feel it makes more necessary to make one. Miaers 22:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Even before the disambiguation page was deleted, University of Wisconsin redirected to University of Wisconsin-Madison. I really don't see that changing, and that wasn't really the point I was talking about above.

As for the hatnote creating more need for a disambiguation page, I don't see how that follows. If any information which would be in a disambiguation page is already containing in the hatnote, why bother to create another page? —Mira 23:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"University of Wisconsin" was a disambiguation page before the deletion. Since "University of Wisconsin" can refer to the former institution and UW campuses, it is more reasonable to make "University of Wisconsin" a disambig again or redirect it to the system article, as the majority of large university system do in Wikipedia. Miaers 23:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University of Wisconsin Redirect

Since most people agree that "University of Wisconsin" can refer to the former institution and UW campuses, "University of Wisconsin" should either be a disambig page or have it redirected to University of Wisconsin System. The majority of large university systems in Wikipedia actually have such page directed to their system article. Miaers 00:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"University of Wisconsin" can refer to the former institution and UW campuses, but it is most commonly used to refer to UW-Madison, especially when that person lives outside Wisconsin and is unfamiliar with the UW system (i.e. most of the world). Also..Miaers, whether you like it or not, "Unversity of Wisconsin" currently redirects to "University of Wisconsin-Madison." The redirect hatnote should definitely remain at the top of the UW-Madison article as long as the redirect is in effect, so please stop deleting it. – Lordmontu _{(talk) • (contribs)} 22:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to make it easer for the readers to read by reducing unnecessary wordings. It is good for any circumstances, whether UW is redirected to UW-Madison or not. You are making a big thing out of nothing.

Most of the "University of Wisconsin" used here refer to the one existed before 1956, which included the Madison campus together with the statewide Extensions. "University of Wisconsin" was a system even before 1956. I think it is more appropriate to direct "University of Wisconsin" to "University of Wisconsin System" Miaers 23:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Miaers - You need to leave the hatnote alone. It recognizes the fact that the redirect is in place and is hardly worthy of being called needless wording. I don't know if you're just obtuse in general or disrupting wikipedia to make a point, but the redirect wording belongs and should remain. Cheers, PaddyM 02:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

User:PaddyM, I usually only find 16 year old cheerleader attractive. But you impressed me as at least double that age. I would really appreciate it if you could stop typing cheers everytime you leave a comment. The "University of Wisconsin" was a state-wide system in the first place. "University of Wisconsin" should be redirected to the system article. Miaers 03:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As Lordmontu said, "University of Wisconsin" can refer to the former institution and UW campuses, but it is most commonly used to refer to UW-Madison, especially when that person lives outside Wisconsin and is unfamiliar with the UW system (i.e. most of the world). That is the important thing here. Not every case in which a title is ambiguous (i.e. has more than one meaning) requires disambiguation that treats all variants equally. This is not a case of POV, but rather of considering effectiveness and efficiency for users and editors. Dekimasuが... 03:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The current UW-Madison doesn't include the state-wide Extensions of the old University of Wisconsin. But Most of the "University of Wisconsin" used here actually refer to the old one existed before 1956, which basically was a state-wide system. Redirecting "University of Wisconsin" to the System article is actually for the sake of effectiveness and efficiency for users and editors. Miaers 03:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually look at "What links here" before saying that, or are you just saying it? As far as I can tell, "most" do not link to things before 1956. Anyway, per Andrewa, Currently, there's no entity that's officially called University of Wisconsin, but before 1956 this was the name of what is now University of Wisconsin- Madison. That would lead me to believe that the links should point to Madison in either case. Dekimasuが... 03:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably Andrewa didn't know University of Wisconsin that well or he didn't write it right. University of Wisconsin before 1956 include the Madison campust and a state-wide extensions facilities overall Wisconsin. This is a fact. For example, UW-Milwaukee absorbed a large University of Wisconsin Extenion facility in Milwaukee when it was founded. UW-Parkside and UW-Green Bay were actually built from the old University of Wisconsin Extensions in their current locations. Miaers 04:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite right about Andrewa. He doesn't know anything significant about UW apart from what he has learned from Wikipedia, and subsequently from a few other sources. It seems to be a fascinating story of (continuing) politics and (well-intended mis)administration, which I hope will one day be documented in Wikipedia in a way that is interesting, unbiased, accurate and accessible to outsiders. In fact I think when we do this, the insiders will find it quite educational too. Education is like that. But we have a way to go.

A case can be made for having the redirect point to either Madison or to the UW System, and with appropriately written article headers, history sections etc either is perfectly acceptable from the point of view of a static encyclopedia. However, it is also entirely predictable that from time to time we'll have an edit war if we take either of these courses, as people do have strong opinions both ways. So, and in view of the fact that, in some perhaps rare and historical but still valid contexts there is a third possible meaning of the phrase University of Wisconsin, a disambiguation page still seems to me the best course of action. I'm sure people can write much better versions of it than my attempt. In the fullness of time, I hope they will. Andrewa 11:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I appreciate being called a 16 y/o cheerleader (nor do I understand the relevance to this discussion of Miaers' personal attack against me), but as the redirect is in place, it is entirely appropriate to leave the note at the top of the page in order to reflect this reality. Cheers, PaddyM 17:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually have been under the impression that you are a middle-aged woman, because I am not familiar with the name Paddy and thought it is a woman's name. It actually is. Here are 4 examples on the internet : [4], [5],[6], [7]. Anyway, I thought anyone older than 16 is old for cheerleading and what I really did was just to ask a favor. There is nothing else involved. As you can see there are many reasons that "University of Wisconsin" should direct to the University of Wisconsin System or make it a disambig. Miaers 17:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, Miaers: "Paddy" is a nickname for Patrick, and as such has been spread to all Irishmen, including Micks like myself (even if I am a Prod). --Orange Mike 00:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to continue talking about the gender of Paddy. I actually find it is even gross if PaddyM is male. Miaers 00:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)