Talk:Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis/Archive 1

Archive 1

The Center on Philanthropy

I suggest someone initiate The Center on Philanthropy article. I'm interested to hear more about it.

--ConradKilroy 17:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Notable Alumni

Removed defaced entry to alumni. Removed two new entries, as neither can be confirmed. --24.166.17.187 00:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Iupui.jpg

Image:Iupui.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Uncritical

This article says nothing critical of IUPUI.

For locals IUPUI is a mixed bag because though it was intended as a "commuter school" - a university with scant campus housing, situated to provide educational opportunities for a large city - parking has gone from horrible to horribler.

The campus location has never been convenient for anyone, even people who work downtown have to drive there and park because bus service in Indianapolis is so bad. That the campus was placed so near the IU med school was a boon to the med school - up until the mid 1970's, student activitiy fees were allocated 10:1 in favor of med students activities.

To counteract their inconvenient location and lack of parking, IUPUI offers 100-level courses at numerous sites throughout central Indiana.

The impact of IUPUI is measured by its acceptance in the community and by its graduation rates. As for acceptance, during the past 20 years Indiana Wesleyan has grown its adult education enrollment by 11,000, in no small measure a repudiation of IUPUI's parking problem and location (and in IUPUI's defense, the easy coursework in the IWU online campus). IUPUI's graduation rate is very low.

In 2008 IUPUI was the scene of political correctness run amuck, when IUPUI punished one of its employees because he was reading a book about the downfall of the KKK while on lunch break. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.15.34 (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversy Removal

I removed the controversy section regarding the employee firing incident. This article is on the entire IUPUI. The incident in question was just one incident. On the scale of national news it was relativly small. Sure it recieved negative press, but it came and went. If this incident had not so recent we would not even consider it. The article over all of IUPUI should not be marred by one recent minor news saga. Criticism should not be added just for the sake of criticism. NeuGye (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the incident garnered quite a bit of media press. A quick google search will bring up several notable news agencies, CNN, MSNBC, USAToday, WSJ, NYT, etc. and enough that it should be included as said story is part of the greater debate )not necessarily negative, rather instructive) on campuses concerning free speech and political correctness. I am inclined to agree however that it is not notable to create an entire subset for itself and so I have added it merely as a historical footnote in the history section. I hope this will be more appropriate. Thanks. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Many things make news without really being relevant. I disagree with its inclusion. However, if it is included, its seems to be a compromise to put it in the history section. NeuGye (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As the article stands the bit about the affirmative action controversy does not fit well. If the concern is with the influence of political correctness on IUPUI's campus a more far-reaching example would be the smoking ban. If the concern is with free speech on campus a broader example would be IUPUI's Democracy Plaza and what it does or does not do. To discuss the affirmative action controversy in the present context makes for an odd article. Furthermore, in looking to other university articles on Wikipedia, I don't find the same standard for the inclusion of controversies. In particular, Auburn University's article has nothing about the academic fraud controversy involving Thomas Petee, interim chairman of the sociology department, teaching sham courses for athletes. That seems to rise to the standard set here (and it goes beyond because it seems much more far-reaching in its consequences implicating both the athletic program and Auburn's academic reputation). I would like to see either the bit on the IUPUI controversy removed or else the article fleshed out to put it in a context consistent with the stated reasons for its inclusion as discussed in HoundofBaskerville's comment above (that is, fleshed out with something more knowledgeable about political correctness and free speech at IUPUI). Mc2000 (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

COLORS/MOTTO/ETC

dont you think the colors/motto/etc everything thats in another article should be in this article, as it is in most other college pages? i dont think someone should have to go to ten different pages to find out what the school colors are ~ORANGE~ 22:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcnaranja (talk • contribs)

Category for merged universities

I think it would be interesting to have a category called something like "Merged Universities" or "Joint Venture Schools", but maybe that's not the right term. I also don't know of any other universities like this so maybe its not worthwhile? But if that's the case then it should be mentioned in the articles for IUPUI and IPFW that they are unique in that way. Anyways, I'll go ahead and add the category. -- Suso (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think it's a very interesting idea but I worry that it might be original research unless we can find some good resources that make this distinction or definition for us. I think it's important to have good external resources because this kind of category would depend intimately on how it's defined. I don't know of any other campuses where two or more institutions are so completely intertwined but I'm sure there are many where multiple institutions cooperate quite extensively. ElKevbo (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean partnerships between Universities on projects (like Internet2, LHC or other research projects). I mean cases where a new separate school has been formed. I don't see how its original research. If something like a school was formed from two other schools, I would think it would be pretty obvious or in their charter, etc. Its not like we wouldn't have something to cite then for evidence. -- Suso (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at your very impressive edit history I see that you've touched probably every college article on Wikipedia. If anyone would have heard of other schools falling into this category, I would think you would be one of them. ;-) The problem is, finding something that can be cited to include a statement about these being the only colleges of their kind. I though that some colleges in California fell into this category though. -- Suso (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Non-Neutral

The second paragraph of the introduction reads like it was written by the school's admissions dept. It is bragging, and non-neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.112.171.141 (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ways to pronounce the acronym

(Pronouncing IUPUI)

Is there a funny way to say the acronym?--BigMac1212 23:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the acronym (IUPUI) is pronounced by many Indy locals as 'EwwiePewie'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raschafe (talk • contribs) 21:20 & :35, 30 May 2006

• I've always heard it referred to as "eww-ee-poo-ee", never heard anyone actually spell out the acronym, and I've only heard the proper name once, in explaining what that funny word referred to. I'd have thought that the pronunciation was common enough to warrant inclusion in the article. --Reverend Loki 19:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  •    It is incredibly sloppy to rely on such spellings to communicate a pronunciation. I've had few occasions to hear it pronounced, but as a member of the obsessive-compulsive-American community [wink], i'm inclined to trust my own recollection of it as 4 syllables, YEW-ee-PYEW-ee. ...Tho i draw your attention to the (BTW not-necessarily-relevant) fact that YEW-ee-POO-ee would be more suitable in terms of phonetic pronunciation, since it doesn't stand for an acronym (for some other name) initial-ized as IUPIUI).
    --Jerzy•t 21:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    

• In a significant change, the acronym is now referred to as I-Up-You-One. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.6.153 (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2006
  • ...or so called by at least one person whose attention to verifiability is so casual that they use an IP address and don't bother even to sign with even three tilde-characters. That talk contrib should be considered further -- whenever better evidence of such a "significant change" emerges.
    --Jerzy•t 21:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    

Phonetics

Is there a way to phonetically say the "IUPUI" acronym in 4-syllabils? I thought the school had a way of saying IUPUI. --BigMac1212 (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I've heard something like "ooh e pooh e" once or twice but I've never heard that from anyone affiliated or familiar with the university. It's almost universally just spelled out. ElKevbo (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

   The two spatially preceding and chronologically earlier contributions were made nearly a decade after the topic was first raised here, and consolidated with them (by relocation) into a new enclosing section. Perhaps the contributors will clarify whether, and if so, how, their take is changed by learning of the earlier discussion, which for a long lack of its own section-heading would have been hard for them to spot.
--Jerzy•t 22:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

First sentence

• "IUPUI is the urban research university campus of Indiana University located in Indianapolis, Indiana." I don't understand exactly what this sentence means. Is there something called "urban research" that goes on there? If not, I think it is just too wordy. Would "IUPUI is the research campus of Indiana University located in Indianapolis, Indiana" be accurate? Recury 20:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No, the second sentence would not be accurate given that Indiana University (Bloomington) is also a research university. You cannot simply say "IUPUI is the research campus of Indiana University". Given that IUPUI is located in downtown Indianapolis, i think "urban research university" is fitting.
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.128.220 (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2007
    
  • Additionally, much IUPUI research tends to focus on urban issues. Examples include the POLIS Center, the School of Education's focus on urban education, Public & Environmental Affairs (several urban research projects), etc.

  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.236.0.205 (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  

  •    Could someone with enuf interest check whether these insights are reflected on the accompanying article page, and whether each of the possible senses (urban modifying "research U" or even "campus", and "urban research" modifying U) is verified with reliable sources?
    --Jerzy•t 22:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    

(Two swimming-pool related discussions)

(Created in response to the second one having been placed, out of chronological order, just after the first.)
--Jerzy•t 03:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Fast swimming pool?

The campus is the home of the Indiana University Natatorium, one of the fastest swimming pools in the world[citation needed] and `Michael A. Carroll Stadium, home of the 2006 & 2007 USA Track & Field Championships.

How can a swimming pool be fast? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 07:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not a swimmer, silly rabbit, so check out fast track on wikt; i'd bet you'll get it too.
--Jerzy•t 00:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Pool

wiki for pool- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_University_Natatorium — Preceding unsigned comment added by CWgirl08 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This website has some interesting info about the roof design. I have no idea how to work this into article copyright wise. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:epthyDQYri8J:www.tnemec.com/project/view/%3Fj%3D382+iupui+natatorium+design&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com CWgirl08 (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

NCAA Championships http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5hxGwfJUs2cJ:theswimmerscircle.com/blog/swim-news/famed-iupui-pool-to-host-bevy-of-ncaa-championships/+iupui+natatorium+pool&cd=39&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com CWgirl08 (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 5 October 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved - consensus to move to Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis with unspaced endash. (non-admin closure) --IWI (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis → Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis – Official guide explicitly says en dashes should not have spaces on either side. MOS:ENDASH also only prescribes spaces "when used as sentence punctuation", of which this is not a case. MOS:ENBETWEEN would also apply stating "Generally, use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities.", but would be contrary to official use. 17jiangz1 (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. OhKayeSierra (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Weak oppose: The university's official style guide doesn't matter, and the proposed hyphenation is confusing. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• @BarrelProof: How is it confusing? Also note that 1 2 3 most secondary sources use an unspaced hyphen, which is also what is called for by the Wikipedia MOS. In either case, it should be unspaced, just a question of hyphen or en dash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 17jiangz1 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I think I would vote for an en dash over a hyphen. My confusion may just be my own. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support, with an unspaced en-dash between the elements. BD2412 T 17:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Y Done. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

"Ooey pooey" pronunciation in lede

The lede currently includes a brief aside that the name of this institution is "colloquially known as 'Ooey-Pooey'" which is supported by two references: These references are both over 19 years old and only mention this pronunciation in passing. This is insufficient to support including this information in the article, much less including it in the lede sentence. ElKevbo (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't support removing it outright when the sources are so strong (if a little old), but I agree that the inclusion in the lead sentence may out size the usage in real life in modern times. IUPUI has joked on their twitter about the name and insist it is "I-U-P-U-I", and I know most people in Indiana (where I live) pronounce it that way, but ooey-pooey is still in use and a quick Google search shows plenty of people continuing to use it, often as a bit of a joke. Perhaps we can remove the current "colloquially known as..." and add in a sentence after the first saying: "The name is officially pronounced as individual letters and sometimes colloquially called "ooey-pooey"."--Cerebral726 (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Two 18-year old sources that barely mention this are far from "strong." ElKevbo (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that they barely mention the name and I was referring to the fact it was the NYT and the Chicago Tribune, not some random website.--Cerebral726 (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

If there are not any sources that contradict those sources, then I do not see why they should be removed. Wikipedia routinely uses sources 19 years old or older, in fact Wikipedia routinely uses sources that can be several hundred years old. In particular, we are talking about two high-quality newspapers, one of which uses the moniker 'Ooey-Pooey' in the title of the article. I do not see any issue with the current lede. @ElKevbo Have you encountered any sources that claim that the 'Ooey-Pooey' pronunciation has since been discontinued? If not, we revert to the latest RS, in this case these two articles. Eccekevin (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

It's disingenuous to demand that anyone prove a negative; that, of course, cannot be done.

Please explain why information that is only briefly mentioned in two 19-year old source merits inclusion in the lede. How is this the most critical information that readers must know immediately? ElKevbo (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Including pronunciations is standard practice in the lead, so I concur with Cerebral and Eccekevin here. However, we could improve how it's done. I'd suggest as one possibility that avoids undue weight we add an explanatory footnote after the acronym that explains it's sometimes pronounced "ooey pooey" (with {{IPAc-en}} and perhaps even an audio file) and sometimes "I-U-P-U-I". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to include information in the lede sentence - information that isn't discussed or used anywhere in the body of the article - based only on passing references in a few light weight articles that are nearly two decades old. This is a glaring violation of WP:DUE.

It's also dishonest to make a claim about contemporary practice only citing information that is quite old. ElKevbo (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I like Sdkb's idea of a footnote, which seems to also address ElKevbo's undue concerns. It should definitely state that I-U-P-U-I is the preferred pronunciation, and then use the NYT/Washington Post sources to state that it has been called ooey-pooey, without claiming how contemporary or common it is. --Cerebral726 (talk) 12:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I also like Sdkb's idea of a footnote. (For ElKevbo concerns: there is no Wikipedia Policy that says that a 19 year old source cannot be used. A more recent one might supersede it, but seemingly we do not have one. Secondly, the position in the lede is warranted by MOS:LEADPRON, and is commonly done as pointed out by Sdkb). Given MOS:LEADPRON, and the fact that these are the most recent RS on the matter, the lede is fine as is, also I am also ok with changing it to a footnote. Finally, there are more recent sources, albeit in less reliable sources than the NYT or CT, like this one from 2022 and others. Eccekevin (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'm on board with clarifying the typical pronunciation is the I-U-P-U-I version and making sure it stays in the lede per MOS:LEADPRON. I believe the footnote should read "Typically said with the letters pronounced separately, the university is also sometimes phonetically pronounced "ooey-pooey" [insert IPAc here].<refs>" Thoughts?--Cerebral726 (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@ElKevbo:, your template warning stating I am engaged in an edit war seem unnecessary and unhelpful. The clear WP:STATUSQUO right now is including the colloquial pronunciation, and the current consensus in this discussion is clearly leaning towards continuing to include it. Maintaining that status quo is far from edit warring. --Cerebral726 (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

"I'm right" is not an exception to WP:EW. I strongly encourage you to review WP:OWN. ElKevbo (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say I was reverting it because I am right it is better, I am reverting it because it is the status quo. Do you disagree that including the pronunciation qualifies as the WP:STATUSQUO? --Cerebral726 (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

No, not in this instance. That's abundantly clear from the discussion above. ElKevbo (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what aspect of WP:DUE you think affects status quo, which regards the pre-existing state of the article (in this case it was up since at least January). Regardless, consensus (I believe) seems to be in favor of it's inclusion given the sources and MOS:LEADPRON, so this conversation seem relatively moot. I will continue to leave the article as it stands until the above discussion is complete, as I suggest you do as well. --Cerebral726 (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ElKevbo, please don't give out edit warring warnings for edits like the one Cerebral made. It's clearly not edit warring when the editor hasn't previously edited this article since March and has established a prevailing consensus here at talk. My reading of this discussion is that we should go with the footnote compromise, but really, we all need to take a step back—whichever way this goes, it isn't the end of the world. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: please be mindful of WP:CIVIL. I am assuming good faith, but you have been a bit uncivil so far, throwing around terms like "ridiculous" and "dishonest" at other's user's suggestions. You have accused editors of WP:OWN without proof (especially since you are the only one who disagrees out of 5 users). So far, you have four editors politely disagreeing with your interpretation of WP:DUE and WP:LEADPRON. Please don't engage in personal attacks, no need. 04:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Eccekevin (talk)

I just came upon this discussion by chance, almost made an edit to the article before I realized this was contentious. I just wanted to weigh in with a couple of thoughts:

• We should not use the term "phonetically" in the footnote text. There is no reasonable way this pronunciation could be considered phonetic, so that is confusing. The letters "iu" are not typically pronounced like the "oo" in "pool".
• Based on all the sources, this statement doesn't seem to provide enough context. It should note that the term is used colloquially, as has already been stated in this discussion, and not by the school itself. This is different from other situations, such as "Cal," which is a self-applied moniker. The Chicago Tribune source states it is "annoying" to some at the school. It is also worth noting that all the sources provided are out-of-town publications.
• Also, based on the sources, it is worth noting the term appears to be falling out of fashion. I don't think it is clear enough to just say it is "sometimes" pronounced this way. Aside from how many fewer recent sources there are, here is a school publication which speaks about the pronunciation as historical: "The awkwardly phrased Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis opened in 1969. The school, affectionately called "Ooey-Pooey" in those days...". Dominic·t 22:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  Nice find with the more recent source! Given that, I'd be fine with changing the footnote to read "historically". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

The problem with that source is that it says it was called Ooey-Pooey in those days, but then a few paragraphs down it uses the nickname to refer to the current team, implying that the nickname started in those days, but was not limited to them and is still used. Aditionally, being an offiical website for the team, it is not technically a WP:RS. Eccekevin (talk) 03:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, as I pointed out, there are sources even from 2022 that use the term.ref>"College Basketball Bet Of The Day: The Last Stand". Off Tackle Empire. 10 February 2022.</ref> Eccekevin (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, "historically" might be overdoing it, but that is why I think something like "falling out of fashion" (as in, in the process of), and that it is not favored by the school community itself, address the concerns. Your example is interesting, but the context of that piece is important, as my reading of the way it is being used is that the author is knowingly using the disfavored term as a teasing reference to the team. The whole article is about IUPUI's recent failures, and there is a bit of a mocking tone. In any case, the sources that are actually discussing the term (such as the Chicago Tribune and iupuijags.com ones) shed more light on the matter than these ones that just use the term with little meaningful discussion, and are more useful in an encyclopedic sense. Dominic·t 01:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is that it is WP:OR. We can't use "my reading of it" as a source. "Sometimes pronounced" is the most accurate, since we don't have sources claiming that this pronunciation is more common, increasing in usage, or decreasing in usage. The Chicago Tribune says that the term is used "annoyingly to some at the school", but never claims it is not used anymore (if anything, the fact it annoys some people shows it is still in circulation). The other sources from the last 5 years don't say anything about the nickname falling out of fashion. Finally, the iupuijags.com sources is not technically a WP:RS because it is not independent (although it still uses the nickname to refer to the current 2017 team, so not even sure that source would be good for your point). I guess the only thing is we could specify that is is "unofficial" nickname, but there's nothing in the sources that suggest it is not used anymore or that it is falling out of fashion. Eccekevin (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Ralph Gray attributes the pronunciation to a former president of IU. At the time that the school was founded, the IU Bloomington and Purdue U campuses were not exactly excited to have another state university ... and in the state's capitol. So, Joseph Sutton's off-hand comment was and did become an "unwanted nickname." See https://www.google.com/books/edition/IUPUI_the_Making_of_an_Urban_University/yOnNSoCtD5YC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=nickname -- Jaireeodell (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm on board with switching "phonetically pronounced as" to "colloquially pronounced as", since it succinctly explains it's ambiguously unofficial and non-formal status, and if there is much more to say in terms of whether it's historic or not, perhaps it should be spelled out elsewhere in the article. --Cerebral726 (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

References

I like “colloquially pronounced” Eccekevin (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

New pages, or rename?

I know this is a bit premature, but what will happen to this article when Purdue and IU part ways in 2024? Will new articles for IUI and PUI need to be made, or will this one simply be renamed IUI and a new PUI article be made? It makes the most sense for this one to be renamed since the majority of the university will become IUI (most of it already is anyhow); but then again, the same could have been said for IPFW and PFW, yet there are separate articles for those two entities. Or this one could be renamed, and a new IUPUI article be made to detail IUPUI-specific history. I'm assuming IUPUC will just become IUC completely, and the few programs Purdue offers at that university will be absorbed by the Polytechnic there, but of course we haven't received news about IUPUC's status just yet. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Good to get the conversation started, thanks for doing so. My thoughts are two new separate articles (IUI and PUI or whatever their names will be) with IUPUI remaining here will make the most sense, since both new universities will have similar levels of claim to the history, and IUPUI up to its dissolution is a notable and well-documented entity in and of itself. Keeping the history of this page intact is most important too in terms of moving and recreating. --Cerebral726 (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Cerebral726 ... keep IUPUI and begin a new entry for IUI. I'm not sure though that PUI is an actual entity. It appears that Purdue is extending its West Lafayette campus to Indianapolis. (Too soon to tell, maybe.) Disclosure: I work at IU[PU]I, so I will not contribute to the edits. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I also agree with this approach although I reserve the right to change my mind as we learn more about this split and its ramifications. ElKevbo (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)