Talk:University of Wisconsin (disambiguation)

This article was nominated for deletion on 26/4/2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on March 15, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation

Wisconsin

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin

Order

As for the order of the links...

1...If it is placed chronilogical order, then UW-Madison should be first, as it was the first campus that began in 1848. However...

2...According to the Manuel of Style page, "place the items in order of usage, with the most-used meanings appearing at the top and less common meanings below." So, if we actually follow the guidelines, UW System and UW-Madison should be placed first, as they are obviously the most-used meanings. – Lordmontu _{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reformatted under the MoS guidelines. Madmaxmarchhare 16:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is the case when "University of Wisconsin" itself is a disambig, but since it redirects to Madison under the current arrangement. Madison campus should be at the bottomn. Miaers 03:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, when someone points out that you are using your logic incorrectly, you simply change the terms of the original statement? Thats not how it works. According to both types of citation in the manual of style, UW-Madison should be listed first, so what does your point have to do with anything? Cheers, PaddyM 03:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The institution from 1848 to 1956 is the mostly used as University of Wisconsin. It should be on the top. Madison campus should be at the bottomn because currently University of Wisconsin redirects to it. It is a wrong arrangement though. Miaers 16:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are making yourself quite obnoxious on this. As several people have pointed out to you, the guidelines for disambiguation pages clearly state that when there is a preponderance of people who are going to be looking for a particular item, it goes first. Silly or not, a plurality of people looking for "University of Wisconsin" will want the place in Madison (which was the first one chronologically as well). That is a fact. You have been told this over and over again, but keep reverting anyway. STOP! --Orange Mike 17:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the "What links here" on University of Wisconsin, you can see most of the "University of Wisconsin" used here are the intitution from 1848 to 1956. Not Madison campus. The currrent redirect already goes to the Madison campus. It is basically the first result. Miaers 17:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not _chronology_ that people are worried about here, Miaers, it's the campus built around Bascom Hill that they're thinking of when they say "University of Wisconsin" before 1956. Just because someone gradauted from UW before 1956 doesn't mean that they went to the _former_ institution, it's that they went to the university on the hill, which is the Madison campus _today_. Madmaxmarchhare 17:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madmaxmarchhare, the guidance is not a law. Chronical order definitely is better in this case. Once more, most University of Wisconsin used here refer to the one between 1848 and 1956. It should be listed as the first by any standard. Madison has been made the first search result. There is no reason to have it in the second place. Miaers 18:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm the one following the guidance here. There was no UW-Madison in 1933. What are you talking about? Miaers 18:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please be aware of what you are. The intitution before 1956 is named as University of Wisconsin with a main campus in Madison and 10 freshman-sophomore centers in other cities in Wisconsin and state-wide extenstion. That is defenitely different from the current UW-Madison, which is just a part of it (source: UW System the former University of Wisconsin part) . Miaers 19:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is not just a name change. Those University of Wisconsin outside Madison still exist. There are 10 UW colleges in Wisconsin. Miaers 19:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nobody is at stalemat with you. You are wrong. Miaers 19:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I find you stupid. My suggestions are at the above. Miaers 20:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dear Madmaxmarchhare, sorry for calling you stupid. But the Madison campus is mentioned as part of the institution (1848-1956). That is what University of Wisconsin was during those years. It doesn't depend on whether you like it or not. Miaers 21:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

OK, I'll revert it back to my previous version and considered it closed. Miaers 21:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

"flagship campus"

I don't know why the fact that UW-Madison is the "Flagship campus of the UW System" is being deleted. This information should definitely be placed in a dab page, as it describes what the Madison campus is. University of Colorado and University of Maryland, College Park both use the term "flagship campus" – Lordmontu _{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flagship is not a politically correct word. Please see Flagship for detail. Miaers 03:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the page you are referencing? According to Flagship, flagship is a common term and it is normal for a university to refer to itself in that manner. It appropriately describes Madison as the largest (both in land and population) and the site of the administration of the university system. Cheers, PaddyM 03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guess you need to read this in the article "...those of us in "systems" of higher education are frequently actively discouraged from using the term "flagship" to refer to our campuses because it is seen as hurtful to the self-esteem of colleagues at other institutions in our systems. 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" "Miaers 03:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the U Wisconsin Business School didn't get the memo: [1]. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the University of Wisconsin-Madison's University Communications department recommends that campus units can use the following boilerplate text when they wish to describe UW-Madison: "The University of Wisconsin–Madison is a public, land–grant institution that offers a complete spectrum of studies through 12 schools and colleges. With more than 41,000 students from every U.S. state and 120 countries, UW–Madison is the flagship campus of Wisconsin’s state university system..." [2] --Akhilleus (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the research. I'll add it to the page. Cheers, PaddyM 23:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. They use it doesn't mean they use it right. Stop being highschool kids, grownups. Miaers 23:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

During the most recent AfD debate, there was some support for expanding this disambig page along the lines of User:Dhartung/Sandbox/University of Wisconsin (disambiguation). Any further comments on this proposal? Andrewa 02:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support, using the sandbox version for now. --Orange Mike 02:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. University of Wisconsin refers to Universities, not hospitals and newspapers. There is no such precedance in Wikipedia. I think you are crazy. Miaers 03:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These antique dealers give me the pip. Where would they be if Louis Quinze had been mad on neolithic furniture? - Simon Templar. If we always follow precedent, nothing new will ever happen. The question is, when somebody comes across the phrase University of Wisconsin, what might it refer to? And obviously, some people think it might refer to the Madison campus library, or to a local university which is officially University of Wisconsin - XYZ, depending on context. Andrewa 09:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, Miaers. Within the past 48 hours, I have found articles with a link to "University of Wisconsin" which actually were meant to link to the "University of Wisconsin Press", for example; as well as links that should have gone to UW-LC, UW-W, UWM, etc. --Orange Mike 14:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything following Wisconsin Badgers should be moved to the "See also" section, because the mascot is never referred to as "University of Wisconsin". I support expanding the dab page. Dekimasu よ! 06:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also support the idea of an expanded dab page. Now we just have to get the page unprotected. Cheers, PaddyM 03:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The protection was recently added to stop the revert war that arose over the word "flagship", see above. I'd suggest we develop a new version at User:Dhartung/Sandbox/University of Wisconsin (disambiguation) or elsewhere in user space. In that the current version uses the word "flagship" to describe UW-Madison, I'd suggest the new one should too, just to avoid complicating things. (I'd far prefer to avoid the word personally, and I said that long ago, but let's just see whether we can make progress on the expansion issue for now.) If we can agree on an expanded version, then we can put it in without removing protection. Andrewa 10:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously support the expansion. I'm happy to allow anyone to edit the version in my sandbox, for simplicity's sake, until consensus is achieved. -- Dhartung | Talk 19:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm fairly certain it was put there to stop Miaers from disrupting the MoS guidelines for dab pages. But, he's on a wikibreak for a week, so we should be able to unprotect the article and get some editing done. Can we migrate the sandbox version in here and keep working on it? Cheers, PaddyM 20:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the easiest thing is to ask the admin who protected the page to unprotect it. But protected or not, I'm happy to migrate Dhartung's version (with the word "flagship" regretfully added) to the page, provided we have rough consensus to do it. I think it's an excellent job, and one other University systems (even ones that don't have the brand war problems of UW) might well want to follow in time. Maiers appears to be the only opponent, is that a fair statement? Andrewa 20:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like Miaers is the only one with the objection at the moment. I'm kinda confused as to the whole debate about flagship, since it most certainly is the flagship campus and the university describes it that way in their own promotional materials. So, go for the migration. Cheers, PaddyM 21:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also support the expansion. I believe that "flagship" should be added to the description of UW-Madison, though I also believe that the description is good enough without it. – Lordmontu _{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the problematic editor now on enforced break, was there any particular problem with some version of the basic 3-entry page? The proposed expansion is quite large and seems more like an article or a list than a disambiguation page. I couldn't seem to find any other US university group with anything similar (say, University of California, University of Texas, University of Illinois, etc.). Even those with a "flagship" school and "system" article use the latter to outline the various campuses. Does the "historical" third entry really make an expansion to dozens of entries necessary? I'm not sure if the entire page in user space was intended to be moved as a replacement, but I think WP:MOSDAB would recommend against much of this - see especially WP:MOSDAB#Examples_of_individual_entries_that_should_not_be_created and Wikipedia:Disambiguation#What_not_to_include. There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation that it might be helpful to solicit an opinion from. - David Oberst 23:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've carefully reread the sections WP:MOSDAB#Examples_of_individual_entries_that_should_not_be_created and Wikipedia:Disambiguation#What_not_to_include and IMO they do not recommend against any of the expansion proposal. Can you be more specific?

Agree that other University articles have not adopted this course of action, but there are two considerations here: One is that someone needs to be first, others may follow in the future; The other, that the three Universities you quote (and I'm guessing most others) seem to be much simpler situations than UW. The naming of UW institutions is a tangled and ongoing history of politics and IMO just plain bad administrative decisions. Maybe there are many others this challenging to document, but I'd be a bit surprised. Andrewa 01:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"generally do not create an entry for:

Title Hospital "

would seem to frown on the entire "Additional institutions and facilities" section, and I don't think I've ever seen any examples of the "Not related..." variety. More generally, dab pages are generally intended to show the specific articles which might be expected to use the specific term. In this case that seems to be University of Wisconsin System, and the wholesale expansion of the component campuses should probably be left to the article, or a separate "List of University of Wisconsin associated articles" type of article. I see there was a previous section at the Wikiproject talkpage, so I've asked for some extra eyes from there to take a look (here). If it is really necessary then it is necessary, but the general development of dab-pages seems to be against this sort of thing, and certainly if I came across the proposed expansion cold my first instinct would be to mark it with {{disambig-cleanup}}}- David Oberst 03:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the titles like "Title Hospital" are moved down to the "See also" section, I think the expansion should be all right as far as WP:MOS-DAB is concerned. I think it makes sense to include the titles of the individual universities in the top section, however, as long as there are no piped links up there. Dekimasu よ! 04:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see what you mean; Good point. But "Title Hospital" refers to something like St Marys Cathedral that is purely named after St Mary, while UW-XYZ has a much closer connection to University of Wisconsin. So while we wouldn't add entries like University of Wisconsin-XYZ to Wisconsin (disambiguation), University of Wisconsin (disambiguation) is an excellent place for them. Andrewa 20:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I am inclined to agree that it would be better for University of Wisconsin to redirect to University of Wisconsin System rather than to University of Wisconsin-Madison as at present, I think that is a lost cause. Yes, the system article can and does refer to most (perhaps all) of the articles that the disambiguation page might list. But the opposition to this (IMO logical) course of action seems insurmountable, has led us twice through WP:AfD and many times through WP:RM (which is how I got involved), and has become quite personal at times. I'd rather not go back over that ground. Have a read of the various talk pages and their archives (if you haven't already), and let's try to find another way. Andrewa 21:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Action

There now seems a rough consensus that the expansion should go ahead, and the page has been unprotected with the word "flagship" retained, so I've pasted the expanded version into the live version, and incorporated the term flagship into it. This preserves the past history of the article but not the edit history of the new version of course... that is preserved mainly in these talk pages in any case.

Details of the expansion (and particularly whether the "unrelated" links should stay there) can be further discussed here as issues in their own right, see below. Andrewa 18:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to the University of Wisconsin

There seems some doubt as to whether this section complies with WP:MOSDAB#Examples_of_individual_entries_that_should_not_be_created and Wikipedia:Disambiguation#What_not_to_include. My feeling is that the section is a useful one, and that this doubt should be resolved by updating these guidelines, rather than removing the section from this page. Other comments?

Particularly, input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation would be appropriate on this point. David has raised this already at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#UW redux, and I'll add a note there as well. Andrewa 18:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion

This is a redundant article. It can be replaced with University of Wisconsin System. I have nominated it for deletion. All the things related with any of the UW system campuses has University of Wisconsin in their names. (eg. University of Wisocnsin-Parkside School of Business, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee student union etc. ). It is pointless to list parts of these universities. Miaers 04:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Wisconsin (disambiguation) (3rd nomination). Andrewa 10:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Shouldn't the links in a dab page be only to wikipedia articles? The colleges and schools under the UW-Milwaukee section are currently linked to external links. – Lordmontu _{(talk) • (contribs)} 22:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Madmaxmarchhare 22:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orangemike, You find your edit so pathetic. Isn't University of Wisconsin-Barron County part of University of Wisconsin Colleges and University of Wisconsin Hospital part of UW-Madison? Miaers 23:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

University of Wisconsin College is one entity within the UW system. The hospital is part of UW-Madison, and it is redirected to it also. Miaers 23:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orangemike, I find your revert on University of Wisconsin Colleges part weird. These 2-year colleges together account one unit of the University of Wisconsin System. Each local location is a subordinate unit of this entity. They share the same administration and website and are funded by the state. Of course, they are also funded by local governments as other UW campuses do. There is also nothing wrong if they receive additional fundings from the private sectors. In addition, University of Wisconsin Colleges which lists them all, is already wikified in the page. Miaers 01:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Disruptive editing

Have we got a problem here, or am I not being patient enough? --Orange Mike 23:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments re:disruptive editing on Talk:University of Wisconsin. I think this has been going on way too long...I'm not a regular in these discussions, but it seems like every time I drop in, not much has changed. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

They are listed in the not related section, because they have Wisconsin and/or University in their names. According to concensus, anything has these two words should be listed there. Miaers 00:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is there anything wrong to put Harvard University as unrelated to University of Wisconsin? There maybe people who think there is only one school in the US. Miaers 00:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeMike

Your edit on UW disambig is vandalism. Please contribute constructively and use discussion to solve dispute. Miaers 23:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC) What NPOV-violation are you talking about? Miaers 23:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

That's ridiculous. Those items are in the see also things related to University of Wisconsin. Do Sterling Hall bombing, Bascom Hill, Memorial Union have University and Wisconsin in their names?

University of Wisconsin Colleges account one unit of the University of Wisconsin System. Each local location is a subordinate unit of this entity. They share the same administration and one website, and are funded by the state. Of course, they are also funded by local governments as other UW campuses do. There is also nothing wrong if they receive additional fundings from the private sectors. In addition, University of Wisconsin Colleges which lists them all, is already wikified in the page. I also an more explanation on it. Miaers 01:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

What do you mean flawed? They don't account for one unit of the system? They don't share the same administration and the one website? They are not funded by the state? Miaers 23:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is no such guidance that subordinate units should be listed. There are a lot to list if it is so. Miaers 00:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

You are confusing readers with the idea that UW-Madison and UW-Waukesha is pretty much the same in the system. Miaers 00:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Maiers, it's hard to understand why you would continue to edit an article that you have proposed for deletion as pointless. If the debate results in a delete, then you have wasted your time editing it in the meantime. If, on the other hand, the debate results in a keep (as seems likely) then the community has rejected your opinion on this article, and will in time revert the ill-advised changes you have made, and again you will have wasted your time, and also stretched everyone else's patience. Few people are stupid enough to let your edits during the discussion period influence them to vote delete: If they think they're good, then they may be more inclined to vote keep; If they think they're bad, then they'll either ignore or revert them.

We need to work for consensus. Any other victory is temporary, whatever the merits of the case may be. That's how wikis work. Andrewa 04:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logic

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Wisconsin (disambiguation) (3rd nomination):

Comment: In reply to User:Orangemike above, the problem is that for all ~~his~~ her disruptive behaviour, Miaers does have a point. There are others (I am one obviously) who find the current redirect from University of Wisconsin to UW-Madison quite bizarre and unhelpful. Those who are already familiar with UW in its various apparitions don't need a lot of help in navigation; The rest of us are left wondering just what is going on. Eventually we discover AHA! They're just having a little local war (now half a century old) about the college names. If Maiers just goes away, others will blunder into this as I did, and it will just be on again. Maiers is I think hoping that deleting the disambig (which I originally created as an alternative to the redirect) will be a step towards eventually pointing University of Wisconsin to University of Wisconsin System. There have been very strong feelings expressed by both sides, and I've been attacked by both sides, which is IMO a big clue as to what is happening. IMO we haven't reached a good solution yet, and it remains a festering wound, and an excellent example of WP:NGR. I suggest humour Miaers (and me if you feel I've been unhelpful too - I have wondered from time to time). And let's all play with lateral thoughts as to how to solve this (just the Wikipedia navigation issue, not the wider naming war)... as opposed to just repeating the same old arguments. The objective is simply that someone arriving here for the first time easily finds the information they need. IMO that should include an understanding as to why the redirect goes as it does, if it must (and as I've said elsewhere, I think anything else is a lost cause). I think we're making progress. Not there yet. No change of vote. Andrewa 20:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to your logic, users are too stupid to read the notice at the top of the page in order to find the disambiguation page. Of course you suggest humoring Miaers, b/c it validates your position; however, it does absolutely nothing to work toward consensus. Cheers, PaddyM 20:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you find my comments useless at producing consensus. I can only try (see above). But, your claim of logic misses the point. An outsider finding a link to University of Wisconsin and ending up at the UW-Madison article would validly assume that UW-Madison had some sort of jurisdiction over UW-M and all the other UW institutions, which of course is not the case. That's what is bizarre and misleading about the redirect, and the disambig notice doesn't address this (unless you already have the local knowledge).

If you do have the local knowledge it's no problem. But not to have the local knowledge is not stupidity. I suppose it might be seen as ignorance, but without some degree of ignorance, there's no point to having Wikipedia. (;-> Andrewa 04:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrewa, I have no local knowledge here (well, I've been to Madison once). But as a fan of college basketball and someone involved in academia I'd be confused if I typed in "University of Wisconsin" and didn't end up at the UW-Madison article. Seriously, ask anyone who follows college basketball, football, hockey, etc. who the University of Wisconsin is, and they'll say the Badgers.

I'd regard that as local knowledge.

But if you want a more objective illustration of this, the thing to do is actually survey how "University of Wisconsin" is used in the news media, scholarly works, etc. Do that, and you'll find that in the majority of cases, "University of Wisconsin" means the Madison campus.

Not that simple. For example, UW-M stands for University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee. Ah, yes, you and I both know that this is a different institution to UW (unqualified), and with this knowledge, there's a sense in which University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee isn't an instance of University of Wisconsin. But without this knowledge, it would be quite valid to assume that it was.

And I would point out that there is a strong consensus for the redirect, so I'm having a hard time understanding why this discussion continues, continues, and continues.

Agree that there is a consensus for the redirect to UW-Madison. The reason this discussion continues is that some of us would like to find a better way than the current setup. Consensus can change... the first AfD was successful, for example, but the second and third have strongly supported keeping the disambig. If that discussion had not continued even in the face of consensus, we'd have lost the disambig page, and I think there's now a consensus that this would have been a mistake.

But there's not a lot new being said. I wonder whether there is a solution that we're not even considering? Perhaps we need some lateral thinking. This is a job for... Wikiman!

Futhermore, the regular contributors to this page might want to participate in the current thread on WP:CN regarding the possibility of a ban for Miaers. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Andrewa 07:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They might also like to look at the (currently open) discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard... but any consensus there looks unlikely at this point. Andrewa 16:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since Jimbo has weighed in I'd say consensus looks quite possible. I doubt the CN thread will lead anywhere now. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo supports the deletion of WP:CN. Interesting. Andrewa 09:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the Miaers thread on CN was deleted as "no consensus". Oh well. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its been undeleted, at least temporarily, until the MfD for community Noticeboard ends. If the page is still there after the MfD and if Miaers wants to respond there it'll probably stay open for a time--Cailil ^talk 23:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It got archived anyway. I think the way to proceed is a user conduct RfC, unless Miaers has any suggestions. I'll wait until the block expires to do anything. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]