Talk:University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee/Archive 1

Notable UWM Graduates

I have removed the following entries from the main article:

Jori Bittner, Fall 2005 MBA Lawyer Referral and Information Service Intern.
Karl Schulz, World renowned robotic dancer/DJ, author of "I DO swing that way...", bestselling memoir on a lustrious swing-dancing career.
Britt Bellinger, Model/Actress, MBA Lawyer Referral and Information Service Director, astronaut.

The first two did not pass the Google test, and would certainly qualify under the Deletion of vanity articles criteria.

The entry on Britt Bellinger, however, did result in a good amount of web results. Her web page is #1 on Google when only her name is entered. From the sources on the net, it was fairly easy to ascertain that she is both a model and an MBA Lawyer referral. Certainly, the claim of being an astronaut is verifyable false. (Please see List_of_astronauts_by_name and NASA Astronauts).

With this under consideration, while some of the information can be verified, it does not appear to be validly 'noteworthy'. Please see example in ' Vanity Guidelines'. Please feel free to discuss.

--Shadowe 07:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

famous alumni

Has your school had any famous alumni? is so, could you send me a list of some sort

are there any famous athletes from your school?

athletes

have you had any famous athletes from your school?

Many, especially from its tradition-rich, perenially-ranked men's soccer program. Several famous and successful motorsports drivers also have degrees from the University's highly-ranked School of Engineering. Please see the updated Alumni section in the article for more info. 143.81.160.51 06:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The three numbers on the seal

I can see from the text that the 1885 number (when wi-st. normal school in milwaukee was established) and 1956 number (when the school became a part of the u of wi system), but what does the 1849 number indicate on the seal? thanks.

I think the 1849 date is when a second college (Downer Women's College?) was purchased and then it was turned public. I don't know. The Hefter Center might have someone who could answer this question.

1849

Is the date the first University of Wisconsin system school was founded, the University University of Wisconsin-Madison. 1885 was when the school now known as the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee was founded, and 1956 was when it became a UW-System school and known as the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. 143.81.160.51 06:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The three numbers on the seal are explained as follows in the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Commencement Program distributed at each semester's commencement ceremony:

Key points in the history of the state’s second largest institution of higher education -— the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee —- were reached during the three years that appear on the university’s official seal: 1849, 1885 and 1956.

1849 represents the era that higher education began in this state. Wisconsin became the 30th state in the union on May 29, 1848. Less than two months later, on July 26, the University of Wisconsin was established under provisions in the new state constitution. One of the initial steps to prepare students for university was enrolling young people in preparatory classes. On February 5, 1849, 17 boys arrived for prep classes in space borrowed from the Madison Female Academy. This date is referred to in Wisconsin education as Founders Day. Then, in autumn 1850, the first University of Wisconsin freshman class assembled in Madison for first-year instruction as part of a four-year college curriculum.

1885 denotes the beginnings of public higher education in Milwaukee at the Milwaukee State Normal School. The Wisconsin legislature in 1880 approved expanding higher education by establishing nine normal schools around the state. The first students in Milwaukee were admitted in 1885. In the beginning, curriculum was limited to a two-year teacher-training program. As its educational mission evolved, the school’s name changed. It became the Milwaukee State Teachers College in 1927 and the Wisconsin State College, Milwaukee, in 1951.

1956 signals the beginning of the modern era of public higher education in Milwaukee. During the late 1940s and early 1950s, many proposals were made to expand higher education offerings in Milwaukee. The successful proposal approved in 1955 combined the previously mentioned Wisconsin State College, Milwaukee, and the Milwaukee office of the University Extension Center, an auxiliary of the University of Wisconsin in Madison. The new university was considered a part of the University of Wisconsin and classes at the new University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee began in the fall of 1956. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BJStratton (talk • contribs) 15:56, 30 June 2006

The right way to say it is that Wisconsin State College, Milwaukee was merged into University of Wisconsin. University Extension is not even an independent academic unit. After the merger UW Extension naturally became UWM's extension. Miaers 16:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

UW-Milwaukee or just Milwaukee?

CollegeSportsGuy (talk · contribs) has been changing many references to University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee to either UW-Milwaukee or even just [[UW-Milwaukee|Milwaukee]], arguing that, in many cases, the school prefers to refer to itself now as just "Milwaukee" (esp for athletics). Can anyone shed light on whether this is the case? (I recall that there was a recent student referrendum about possibly changing the name of the school, but nothing has been decided.) --mtz206 (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I invited you to simply do a small amount of research using the school's official athletics site, but perhaps that is too difficult.

I am an alumnus of this school, graduating fairly recently, and I can assure you that no one calls the school "Wisconsin-Milwaukee". NO ONE. Not students, not faculty, not alumni, not any residents in the surrounding area. The school is also being referred to as UW-Milwaukee less and less (now a distant third-most referenced compared to the school's other preferred names, "Milwaukee" and "UWM", a change likely caused by the recent success of its athletics teams which are labeled ONLY the Milwaukee Panthers, as can be seen on all of their athletics uniforms).

What you are using is simply the full name of the institution but not the common or preferred name used to refer to the university, (and that is official, my friend, see page 12 of this official press release). Here's possibly an easier to understand comparison: this is in no different than what many other NCAA D-I public, state institutions have done with their long and often hyphenated names. The University of North Carolina at Charlotte is now just "Charlotte" for all athletics purposes, and the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga is just "Chattanooga", among many other schools. Yes, this is at first mention on athletics-related pages, see for yourself. Does anyone talking athletics ever use the full university name of UAB, Virgina Tech, UCLA, etc.? Why not? Because that's not what's on their uniforms. It's called a "brand". Who wants to say a 12 syllable team name like UWM's or UCLA's would be?

Now I can understand wanting to use the full name of the institution for non-athletics pages, but on athletics-related pages, it is common practice to use a school's preferred designation, even at first mention. If you take the time to research this issue any further using Milwaukee's official athletics site you will see that even at first mention, Milwaukee is what Milwaukee calls its athletics teams 95% of the time, with UW-Milwaukee being the other 5%. After that it's only Milwaukee or UWM throughout. [1]

Not accepting this means setting a different standard than is currently used for many other public university's on the WIKI that have shorter, preferred athletics names, and would therefore require a major altering of all NCAA-related articles on the WIKI which would have incorrect mentions of those universities (which is thousands upon thousands of articles by my estimation).

Bottom line? For NCAA purposes, this school is called Milwaukee, or UWM. Otherwise you have a lot of editing, and upsetting of many fellow Wikipedians, to do for the aprox. 50-75 other NCAA D-I universities that are in the same position Milwaukee is now. CollegeSportsGuy 06:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Alumni ordering

User:Edipedia moved the Arts & Media section of the notable alumni down a few days ago without any edit summary or explanation: [2]. I reverted it, noting that alphabetical organization of alumni categories makes more sense (and "In fiction" at the end is logical since it is an entirely different kind of category). Now Edipedia reverted it back, noting that "It is better to let UWM people decide" [3]. To me, that is not a valid reason (and I was a "UWM person" for a few years, btw). Unless Edipedia can provide a legitimate & encyclopedic reason for changing the order of the alumni sections, it should remain as it has been for the past 2 months. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The main category doesn't need to follow the alphabetical order. Only the subcategory follows the alphabetical order. That is the case for most of other universities. Edipedia 17:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and the sub-headings where alphabetical (save for "In fiction") until you came along and changed it. Your edit does not follow your logic. Further, your re-shuffling of alumni categories does not follow any necessary logic. If you indeed feel that "Politics & government" is somehow more important than "Business," and that "Arts & media" don't deserve to be first, then that is POV edit. By listing the sub-headings alphabetically, we ensure NPOV, which is our primary goal. I will not revert again (see WP:3RR), but ask that either you revert based on this logic, or some other editor revert for me. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2006

(UTC)

I'm just trying to put the relatively prominet category first. All other universities do so. You're overreacting. Edipedia 21:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, and your determination of what is "relatively prominent" is not neutral. The fact that other articles do it differently does not make it correct or within policy. Since this was only your second edit in the project [4] (and I'm not trying to bite), perhaps it is worth considering that it was in error. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetical order seems an appropriate order to put them in, failing any other. Is there a style guide on this someone can point to? Fagstein 04:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm responding to the notice on Wikipedia:Third opinion. I agree with MichaelZimmer. It makes since to put the order of the sub-headings in alphabetical order with the exception of the fictional characters. — D. Wo. 08:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless there is currently a standard in place that is being used on ALL articles for U.S. universities regarding the alphabetization of alumni categories themselves (and not just the alumni listed in them) I'd say making these changes based on the "prominence of the categories and the alumni listed in them" is a valid reason, not to mention a good one.

Therefore, unless other university's article's are all following the same standard of alphabetizing alumni categories, I have to agree with Edipedia. CollegeSportsGuy 13:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Except by what objective criteria do you order by importance? We're trying to avoid people edit-warring because they differ on such subjective assessments. Fagstein 14:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Outside editors seems to agree that any attempt to order these categories based on "importance" introduces a subjective POV. Further, the lack of a global standard does justify such action here. I'm changing them back to alphabetical. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No argument from me, I believe I was the one that originally created those alumni categories (in alphabetical order) before becoming a registered user. I'm just wondering if, after all this time spent debating it, you're going to continue to ignore all the other major universities whose alumni categories are not alphabetized? CollegeSportsGuy 20:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a UWM alum (and student); I want our site to be right wiki-style, which includes NPOV ordering of categories, the diversity stuff of Ilwauk's that gets deleted, etc. The alums of those other schools will have to clean up their own acts.--Orange Mike 18:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC) (entered it earlier, but forgot to sign it)

Photo

Does anyone have access to a suitable photo for the article? The current image of part of a building and part of a sign adds little encyclopedic value to the article. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

When I went through and made the first major overhaul on the article in '04, I uploaded that picture due to two reasons: 1) Its an artistic picture of 2) probably the most recognizable building on campus. So, naturally, I think it works just fine. Of course, that would make me a bit biased in the suitability. ;) --Shadowe 04:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It might be the most recognizable building, you just can't recognize it from the photo. :) --MichaelZimmer (talk) 10:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded four photos, three of which have since been removed from this page. (Image:UWM Golda Meir Library Detail.jpg, Image:UWM Golda Meir Library.jpg, Image:UWM Mitchell Hall Fisheye.jpg, Image:UWM Mitchell Hall.jpg) The merit of any of them, I will allow the fellow wikipedians here to debate, but I think that they are probably better than the three suspected copyvio images currently on page. As I don't want to start a revert war, I will not add them again, but rather, bring it up here, to start a polite process towards consensus. (I think UWM taught me the scholarly art of discussion.)-slowpokeiv 01:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The university's name for athletics...

...is Milwaukee. All official releases from the school refer to ALL the school's team's as the "MILWAUKEE" Panthers, and then use UWM and Milwaukee interchangably throughout the rest of the article/release. They are the athletics teams OF the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and the athletic site is the official site OF the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, but the teams are the "Milwaukee Panthers". It's really not all that complicated once you think about it. User:1ne, when referring to the athletic teams, "Wisconsin-Milwaukee", and any variation there of, is indeed improper. I've added a cite stating this (the conference's official media guide), and corrected the article. I am very familiar with this situation, having worked with the school's SID regarding this issue in recent years. I realize it may seem like a strange idea at first to those unfamiliar, but just think about what the University of Wisconsin-Madison calls their athletics teams... the "Wisconsin" Badgers. They use only a part of their schools name, the part they believe best identifies the school for athletics. UWM simply does the same thing now. This is also not uncommon in recent years with other large state universities that compete in the NCAA's D-I, such as UNC-Charlotte and UT-Chattanooga that have done the same. Let me know if you need any other sort of official confirmation from the school, and I should be able to get it for you. Thanks! - CollegeSportsGuy 04:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Lack Of Diversity

Someone who refuses to log in has been deleting my additions citing the lack of diversity on campus with no explanation being given. My guess is that this is someone who has a fondness for the university doesn't want to see it here because it doesn't look good when a public university in a perdominantly minority city is over 80% white, but to that I say.... tough! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a recruitment brochure and anything that is backed up with the proper resources (unless you somehow don't consider the Journal-Sentinel or UWM's own "PantherVision" as "proper") has a right to be here, good or bad. If you don't like the facts, talk to the chancellor, but don't try to censor facts. --Illwauk 18:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Purchase of other schools - Put it in or leave it out?

I put in a bit of history of the schools whose campuses we absorbed 1959-1963: Milwaukee-Downer Seminary [not M-D College; the Seminary was a girl's school] and Milwaukee University School. Their buildings are now part of our campus, but another editor reverted this, saying this doesn't matter to UWM history. Comments/reactions from others who care one way or the other?--Orange Mike 03:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be valuable content. I haven't looked but I think I can guess who removed it. I'd suggest you start a detailed article on History of University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. One of the important functions of a stub is to preserve content such as this in a form that is readily accessible, both to readers and to other editors of Wikipedia.

You don't need to write the whole article of course! Like most websites and all wikis, Wikipedia is a work in progress. Just contribute what you can. I've started it with the clipped material, refactored a little. Andrewa 20:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I've now started the article, and other editors have now renamed it and copied much of the content there from the history section here... not very carefully, unfortunately, see Talk:History of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, but it's progress. Andrewa 23:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Phil Katz

Does anyone happen to know which UW campus did Phil Katz graduate from? Milwaukee Journal Sentinel seems to say he obtained his BS in computer science from UWM. But the Phil Katz article in Wikipedia says he graduated from Madison. Which one is right? Miaers 20:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The obit agrees with other articles that he graduated from the Computer Science Department at UWM.--Orange Mike 21:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess UWM has another alum. Miaers 21:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Split to University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee alumni

This article is getting long. I propose splitting off the list of alumni to University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee alumni, or perhaps even create a List of University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee people (like the List of New York University people), which could also include current faculty or other notables who aren't alums. Thoughts? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There's already a "Category:University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee people" for non-alumni (which I've been adding to pretty heavily lately, as I have the alumni category). I'm not sure we need a whole separate article for either one.--Orange Mike 18:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Even with the category, its a concern over WP:SIZE. Such separate articles are common. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Even counting all the lists, etc. we're only at 32.0 kB (4689 words) as of a few seconds ago. That's not really a size to worry about in the 21st century.--Orange Mike 18:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is better to make the alumni list shorter. Some of the listed people actually are not that prominent. It is better to have them removed from the list. Miaers 16:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I support creating a seperate article for List of University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee people. Miaers 16:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Redir targets

Milwaukee Normal School and Milwaukee State Normal School both redirect here. I think we need a redirect target in the intro to conform to the principle of least astonishment, but my first attempt at one has been removed.

Or, perhaps we need a separate article on the history of UWM. Probably not a bad idea, this page is far too large as is. These redirs for former names could then point to the history article. Andrewa 20:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

UWM is not that known for the Milwaukee State Normal School. There is no need to highlight this at the begining of this article. Also I don't think UWM is that kind of university with a glorious history that has to have a seperate article for its history. In my opinion the length of this article is just fine. We may seperate the alumni list in the future if it grows too long. Miaers 21:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

We may need to agree to disagree on this. Overall, I think we are making real progress, but there's lots left to do. Andrewa 01:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Many institutions consider UWM was founded in 1956. UWM right now is also celebrating its 50th year. I think the year in which UWM was founded should be something not to be highlited at the beginning of this article. Miaers 15:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no view either way on that. But I do think that it would be good to conform to the guidelines regarding redirects, one way or another.

Either Milwaukee State Normal School (aka Milwaukee Normal School) is closely enough associated with UWM for the redirects to be valid, and the name to be highlighted in the intro, or it deserves an article of its own. This other article could be on the history of UWM, or on the normal school, or probably on several other topics, just so long as it's something to which the redirects can comfortably point. Andrewa 00:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no such entity as Miluwakee Normal School. It should be deleted instead. As for Milwaukee State Normal School, I think it is a bad idea to put Milwaukee State Normal School in the intro. There is no precedent in Wikipedia to put old names of a university in the article intro. Milwaukee State Normal School is only an old name that is rarely known and used. I only find two articles in Wikipedia that use this name and I've put a (now University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee) next to it. Basically there is no need to redict it. I'll suggest delete "Milwaukee State Normal School". Miaers 16:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There should still be a redirect page for those who are looking for the old institution (having read about it in a biography of Golda Meier, for example, or in a historical article somewhere outside Wikipedia itself). It never hurts to have a redir out there.--Orange Mike 19:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It is ok if you can redirect it to the history section of the article. I don't think it is appropriate to redirect to the whole article. These two are not the same anyway. Miaers 19:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea sort of, but there are technical reasons for not using redirects to article sections. You will I hope notice that your first attempt simply did nothing. Unfortunately, this is more a matter of logic than software.

So, if you're determined that the redirs shouldn't be acknowledged in the article intro, the alternative is to split out the history section as an article. And I really don't see why that would be a problem. Andrewa 20:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're confident of your ground here, you should nominate the redirects for deletion. But it seems unlikely to me that this will gain much support.

The purpose of the redirects is navigation. When I created Milwaukee State Normal School it instantly resolved one existing red link. The existing Milwaukee Normal School also had an existing link, as you have noted. We can expect more such links to be created, as biographical material often (perhaps even normally) uses the name of the institution at the time of attendance. And even if Wikipedia were to unilaterally try to remove these historical names from the record, we'd still have people searching for them from other biographical sources.

Unless these deletion nominations succeed, it still seems to me that we should follow the guidelines. Andrewa 19:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, Andrewa, that's what I was trying to say. Redirects to archaic or just plain wrong versions of institutional names and titles are a dime a dozen in Wikipedia; that's one of the things they are for! We don't scorn the querent for not having the name right; we send them to the proper place.--Orange Mike 19:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think it goes far, far deeper than that. Biographical material wasn't all written yesterday! For example, an obituary for a graduate of (what is now) UWM who died in 1900 won't mention UWM, because it (in a sense) didn't exist when the obit was written. Andrewa 20:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Listing the old names of a University at the begining of the article is not a dime a dozen in Wikipedia. I think it is better to create a short article for Milwaukee State Normal School.Miaers 20:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That's an alternative, yes. But it might risk being merged back if it looked like remaining a permanent stub. I'd prefer a more comprehensive article on the history of UWM for this reason, and also because that would be a chance to shorten the main UWM article, which is now long enough to cause problems with some browsers. Andrewa 20:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, there is no university in Wikipedia have its old names listed at the biginning of the article and I can't find any university in Wikipedia has a seperate article for its history. I think it is better to keep the status quo. Miaers 20:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

While Miaers' statement may be a little sweeping, I agree with his points here. Old names don't usually go in the lead paragraph of a college article (nor do they do so here); and the history of a university is not (unlike, say, the history of Spain) so broad a topic as to deserve a separate article. The current article is simply not all that long by modern standards.--Orange Mike 21:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It's more than a little sweeping, it's actually false. But more to the point, it doesn't answer the original question: What do we do with the redirects? Is the current guideline wrong, at least when it comes to American universities?

On the subject of size, you might like to look at Wikipedia:Article size. This article is currently 30kB, so it's at the size we start thinking about splitting it, but not urgently.

On the subject of separate articles on the history etc, it may be true that there aren't such articles yet (I don't know), but I can see no reason that there won't be in the future. In fact I'd think it's inevitable.

I think we've given this issue a fair hearing. It's not all that important IMO. Andrewa 02:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with deleting those redirects then? There are only small numbers of articles here use these old names and they are not Wikilinked. These redirects are not necessary at all. A lot of universities have changed their names in history. I don't want to be nerd by creating numerous redirects for these universities and forcing Wikipedia administrators to creat seperate history articles for these universities to conform to some rules. Miaers 16:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The creation of a redirect is a kindness, a courtesy to fellow wikipedia users; their existence doesn't "force" anybody to do anything. The deletion of them would be inconsiderate and discourteous to somebody who might look for an institution under another name.--Orange Mike 16:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm terribly impressed by your considerateness. But deleting those redirects won't cause any trouble to those people. Since the old institution names are in UW-Milwaukee's history section. UW-Milwaukee will naturally show up in the search results. As you can see from Andrewa's view, there are certain rules to follow and he is doing all these simply because of your creation of unnecessary redirects. Miaers 17:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I created one of the two, as stated above, and it instantly resolved a red link which I had not created. Andrewa 02:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated the above two redirects for deletion. I think they are very confusing. Milwaukee State Normal School is only a predecessor institution of UW-Milwaukee. These two are not the same. Miaers 19:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem not to understand that this is exactly one of the purposes of a redirect.--Orange Mike 20:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As I expected, the deletion nominations were both rejected. Andrewa 19:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Milwaukee State Normal School is not an another name or synomy for UWM. It doesn't justify for the reasons to create a redirect. Miaers 21:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a "related word" for creating a redirect. If Milwaukee State Normal School is considered a related word, then no changes is needed in this article for the redirect. I hope this could settle this dispute. Miaers 21:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Milwaukee State Normal School is not actually a word at all. But it is the former name of the Milwaukee campus, according to one of your own edits. So surely that comes under the heading of other names as a reason for the redirect? Andrewa 02:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there any law in Wikipedia that requires the redirected words or phrases be highlighted in the article? Miaers 16:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a Wikipedia:policy. It's an application of the principle of least astonishment, but if you follow that link you'll see that it (ironically IMO) doesn't follow the principle itself! But see HMS Lincoln (G42) or sweetcrust pastry for how it can work.

It's all about writing the best possible article. And to do this we need to think: Who is the article audience?

Eliminating this redirect target will undoubtedly please many of the visitors to the article, who already have strong connections to UWM and would prefer not to be reminded of the campus' humble origins when compared to UW-Madison. And they're a valid audience, and a large one. But having it there will instantly answer the obvious question being asked by other visitors to the page, particularly those who arrive via the redirect.

So the next question is: What does having the redir target there cost?

And this seems to be where we disagree. Andrewa Andrewa 21:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The principles of lest astonishment doesn't say it is a must to have the redired words and phrases highlighted in the article. UW-Milwaukee has existed for 50 years. Most readers know it as its current name. Highlighting the old name actually can astonish the majority readers. Anyway, I think highlighting the old name reduces the quality of the article by emphasizing unimportant information and creating astonishment to most readers. Miaers 22:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I think the principle does say. I think we just need to recognise that we disagree here. I don't think that anyone would be astonished to see a former name highlighted in the intro, at least not in the sense of the principle. Any surprise that they might experience would be the sort of surprise that enthusiastic researchers actually enjoy. It's called education. The astonishment that we wish to avoid is the confusing sort, not the educating sort.

Is this information unimportant? It might be, in a certain sort of promotional material. But even there, I'm disappointed by this attitude. My experience of American scholars has been that one of their strengths was taking a pride in all of their history. It's something I think that Americans and Australians share, at their best, possibly because of our in some ways (not all) similar histories.

You can relax. I have no intention of replacing the (IMO helpful) redirect target you have removed. That's not the way I think Wikipedia works.

But I'm glad you have given me the opportunity of replying to your reasons for this edit, and hopeful that, in the fullness of time, other editors will examine the pros and cons that we have explored here. Perhaps they'll even come up with a better solution that neither of us have considered. Andrewa 00:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:redirect#What needs to be done on pages that are targets of redirects?. I should have put that explicit link here earlier. Andrewa 03:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for not fighting with us on this. But in case someone else may pick up the fight later, I just want to point out that the redirects requirements only says "Normally, we try to make sure that all "inbound redirects" are mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article." and there isn't a must for highlighting. Miaers 16:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia works best by consensus rather than requirements, but you will I hope notice that we do normally have a redirect target. If it's the highlighting that's the problem, would you be happy with a non-highlighted target? That would be better than nothing. Andrewa 03:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate to put a university's predecessor institution's old names into the intro. They just don’t fit into the context. Miaers 16:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

So, it's not the highlighting that's the problem. But what do you mean, context? Isn't the purpose of the article to provide information to all those who seek it... including those who follow the links you have created here and here, or (more to the point) who search on these old names? Andrewa 19:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Usually people don't consider UWM was founded as the Milwaukee State Normal School in 1880, because these two are too different or whatever the reasons. UW-Milwaukee is also celebrating its 50th year now. The (***) I put next to Milwaukee State Normal School before is to explain to readers how Miwaukee State Normal School is related to UWM. By pointing out that it was a UWM predecessor institution, people naturally will go to the history section of UWM for things they may be interested. What's wrong with that? Miaers 19:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Pointing out that it was a UWM predecessor institution is exactly what is required. So, where does this happen if you follow a link from Milwaukee State Normal School? Andrewa 02:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no article that is wikilinked with Milwaukee State Normal School. Anyway, it is not a must to put it in the intro. Miaers 16:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There are no current links only because you have removed the one there was, and similarly for Milwaukee Normal School. But we can expect more to be created. Are you volunteering to monitor for these? Wouldn't it be simpler just to follow the guidelines, which make this unnecessary?

The guidelines do say there should be a redir target in the intro. You have yet to produce any reason for not following these guidelines, other than that you don't want to. Andrewa 13:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I somehow find your previous wording "Founded in 1880 as Milwaukee State Normal School, it is now one of the two doctoral granting institutions in the University of Wisconsin System" very odd and inaccurate. It sounds like that UWM shouldn't be one of the two doctoral granting institutions in the UW system. I pointed out before, many institutions don't consider UWM was founded as the normal school in 1880 and UWM itself is also celebrating its 50th year. Miaers 20:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess you're referring to this edit. No judgement as to whether UWM should or shouldn't be a doctoral granting institution was intended, but if that's the problem, there's no need to remove content to solve it. Rather, we just need to rephrase the intro to remove this perception.

As to its being inaccurate, the issue seems to be whether UWM is Wisconsin State College of Milwaukee renamed, or whether it's a new institution on the same site. Which you choose is a matter of terminology, and doesn't reflect on the merits of the current institution. And it sounds as if there's no generally agreed historical reason for preferring either of these terminologies over the other.

With me so far? Would you or anyone else like to comment on whether one terminology or the other is preferred, and which, and why? Andrewa 02:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no clue on how to phrase this and that is one of my reasons not to put it in the intro. It is not a must to do so by the way. UWM was taken into University of Wiscosin in 1956. It is just inappropriate for you to say it was founded in 1880 as the normal school. Please stop arguing on this matter. Miaers 17:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is forcing you to continue with the discussion. If what you say has merit, others will take it up, that's how the wiki works best. Andrewa 19:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You've been forcefully trying to put misleading information into the intro. Miaers 19:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That may be your opinion. I've tried to be gentle about it. What's misleading about listing accurate former names, that already redirect to this article, and are already listed in the body of the article? Andrewa 20:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

UWM was taken into University of Wiscosin in 1956. It is just inappropriate for you to say it was founded in 1880 as the normal school.Miaers 20:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

So, if we said instead it was founded in 1956 on the site of the normal school, you'd be happy with that? Andrewa 20:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

UWM also included the UW Extension at Milwaukee when it was created in 1956, which wasn't at the site of the normal school. In addition, most of the current UWM campus is not at the normal school's site. They are just nearby. The normal school also changed its site from downtown to lakefront over the history. Miaers 21:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, great stuff! That's exactly the sort of information that should go into the history article! Andrewa 23:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think Wikipedia needs to improve its software so that redirects can target the history section. This is truly a technical problem not a logic one. Miaers 18:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This has been discussed previously (at great length) and our conclusion was that there are logical problems, to do with handling changes to the headings that were targets. If you have relevant expertise, consider joining the change team. (But you'll need evidence of far broader contributions first.) Andrewa 19:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you've created the Wisconsin State College of Milwaukee article, there is no need to argue anymore. But I do think redirecting to the history section is a better solution. I'm not programmer. So I will not help. But I think Wikipedia should have someone capable of improving its software. I don't think there is any problem with my logic. Miaers 19:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you see this discussion as an argument, and happy for it to end. Andrewa 19:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Matt Koehl, leader of the American Nazi Party: trying to avert an edit war

The guy is scum, and the organization he leads even more so; but he is a UWM alumnus, and certainly more notable than many of those who are still listed as such. But when I returned his listing to the page, Maiers immediately removed it, claiming that Koehl is not political[????] and that the group is unknown[????]! NPOV means that we don't approve of or diapprove of the person or topic we write about, we just try to give information in a neutral manner. I don't want to start an edit war here; could some other UWM folks please weigh in on the topic?--Orange Mike 17:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is just not notorious enough to be listed here. Who the hell is Matt koehl? Miaers 17:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet that 99.9+ percent of people would never view his organization, the American Nazi Party, as a valid political party, but instead just as an extremist group/cult like the KKK. So no, it does not belong in said category. CollegeSportsGuy 18:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If the American Nazi Party is notable enough for Wikipedia then I'd guess that the leader of this 'political party' (per aforementioned article) is as well. Sulfur 21:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There are lot of UWM alumni have their own articles in Wikipedia (Articles are very easy to create). But they are just not that prominent to be listed in the article. If you read the article about American Nazi Party, you can see it is just nothing. Not to mention its leader. By the way, I have never heard of this organization. It is not even comparable to KKK.Miaers 21:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a UWM person, but perhaps I can be some help here just to clarify the issues.

There seems to be no dispute here about accuracy. Koehl seems to be an alumnus of UWM, so he belongs in Category:University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee alumni if he deserves an article at all.

There seems little question of his notability. The article has existed for two years, and in that time has been the subject of a little discussion and attention from various Wikiprojects but no proposals to delete it, so it seems likely he deserves an article. While he doesn't score all that well on Google, the web presence he does have seems to reflect a certain amount of fame.

The only question here seems to be: Does he belong in the list of notable UWM alumni? As the category currently contains only 46 names (including his), it would seem to me that the answer to that is overwhelmingly yes on current evidence. If this is wrong, the best thing is to start creating and categorising articles on other, more notable UWM alumni. Andrewa 19:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

We only list notable people here. This is just a common practice. Is there a law that says all the alumni should be listed? Miaers 20:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Notable" is not the same as admirable. The guy took over the American Nazi Party (which was once pretty noxiously active here, although it was never big); and has had influence directly or indirectly on such well-known persons as Timothy McVeigh and David Duke, among others. Follow the links. --Orange Mike 21:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This is so ridiculous. We don't put scums and criminals on the notable alumni list. And as you pointed out yourself, it has never been big. It is not even noticable. Miaers 22:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

IMO we do put scums and criminals on notable alumni lists. Why not?

You don't seem to get the idea of an encyclopedia at all. This article isn't a promotional brochure for UWM. We're interested in all sorts of information. Andrewa 01:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

For example: many Peruvians (though by no means all) feel that Fujimori is a criminal (in fact, I believe he has been convicted of crimes). That doesn't make him not a notable alumnus. --Orange Mike 02:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree on that. Notable is a synomy for prominent or outstanding. Alberto Fujimori is just controversial. There is a legacy section in the article, which actually says that "He is credited by many Peruvians for bringing stability to the country after the violence and hyperinflation of the García years." Also Matt koehl doesn't score well in the goole search. He shouldn't be listed at all. In addition, he doesn't reprent UWM. Listing him actually is malicious advertising. Please stop this meaningless and stupid argument. Miaers 17:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"Malicious"? NPOV, dammit: [5]! The primary criterion for notability is whether the subject of an article has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject, which applies to all classes of subjects "Doesn't score well"? A Google for "Matt Koehl"+ "Nazi" yields 381 "most relevant results" out of 1,190 total. Sounds like notability to me. As Andrewa tried to remind you, this article is not promotional, not an advertisement for our beloved UWM: it is an effort at an objective picture of the place, warts and all. Listing him among all the obscure jocks and businessmen and so on is more truthful than covering up his existence.--Orange Mike 18:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Notable is prominent not notorious. Miaers 18:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

A person can be both notable and notorious. Andrewa 19:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You think Timothy McVeigh is notable? Miaers 19:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As Wikipedia uses the term, yes of course.

Do you think he's not notable? Andrewa 20:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

People use notorious instead of notable to describe a criminal. Also the notability policy is a disputed policy or not well-defined policy. There are a lot discussions over there. Miaers 20:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's a guideline, and yes some aspects of it are controversial. But I don't think you'll get a lot of support for the view that either McVeigh or Koehl are non-notable, any more than you did for the redirects you wanted deleted.

The disputed tag was added to this guideline just today. But you'll notice the tag is still there that reads It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

Do you really think that either McVeigh or Koehl are going to be an occasional exception? Andrewa 03:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Another thing that we should note is the nature of the disputes over WP:NOTE. The proposal being discussed are to make the notability guideline less strict, and as a result to admit more articles and delete fewer articles. See also Wikipedia:Non-notability. Andrewa 12:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, the aim is to make it less subjective rather than less strict. In other words the aim is to explicitly point out that "I think that this person is a criminal.", "I think that this person isn't notable.", "I think that this person isn't famous/important.", and other subjective judgements made by Wikipedia editors themselves are not notability criteria, and not the way to build an encyclopaedia, whereas we have had and have used non-subjective notability criteria, that enjoy a broad base of support amongst Wikipedia editors and that work, for several years now. Uncle G 16:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Notable is noticeable in a good way. Something that is noticeable may not qualify as notable. It is totally ridiculous to have some notorious criminals listed as notable alumni. These people can only be noticeable. Besides the guideline is about the worthwhile of writing an article not for selecting alumni. Miaers 16:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Incorrect. Uncle G 16:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Notability has nothing to do with "in a good way." Read the :Wiki notability guidelines for people, please? The creep passes the Google, test, etc.--Orange Mike 16:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that the inclusion criteria for this list are simple to formulate:

• If the person is an alumnus and has a Wikipedia article that satisfies the WP:BIO criteria, then the list contains a bluelink and a short summary.
• If the person is an alumnus and doesn't have a Wikipedia article, but the sources exist to show that the WP:BIO criteria are satisfied, then the list contains a redlink and a short summary.
• If the person is an alumnus and doesn't satisfy the WP:BIO criteria, but is verifiable as an alumnus from sources other than just straight directories of alumni, then the list contains a (sourced) paragraph without a link.

If you want another way to look at the list, consider every entry on it as a small sub-topic, with Wikipedia:Summary style break-outs into main biographical articles for those almuni that satisfy the WP:BIO criteria, and no break-outs for those alumni that are more than simple directory-of-alumni entries and that can be confirmed from independent, non-autobiographical, sources, but that do not have enough depth of material to warrant a break-out article.

Excluding people from the list of alumni because they are "notorious criminals" is academic boosterism in disguise. Exclusion of verifiable alumni should be on the basis that that the only verifiable information that exists at all about the alumnus constitutes no more than a mere entry in a directory of alumni. It should not be on the basis of whether someone is "good" or "bad" in the view of a particular Wikipedia editor. Uncle G 16:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has two definitions for notable at Wikipedia:Non-notability#Definitions of "notable". The notalbe in notable alumin refers to the second one. To stop these nonsense, I've change notable alumni to famous alumni. Miaers 17:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't appreciate the significance of the tag at the top of Wikipedia:Non-notability which reads This proposal was rejected by the community. It has not gained consensus and seems unlikely to do so. You may still find this an essay worth reading (emphasis as in the tag). As to the heading change, that's a much better idea than trying to convert Wikipedia to your personal definition of notable, but IMO still a bad idea. Basically, it's another attempt by UWM alumni to suppress accurate information about their campus that they see as negative, and perhaps unfairly this itself reflects poorly on UWM. Andrewa 18:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, Wikipedia should use the neutral "noticeability" when setting its guidelines. Miaers 18:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

An interesting idea, see Wikipedia talk:Notability#Noticeability instead. But there seems little support for it so far.

If you're interested in developing Wikipedia policy, you should find some less controversial articles to edit. I'm sure you have lots to contribute in your areas of expertise and interest. Your current edit history is focussed on this one topic, and your views will carry less weight as a result. And there's a valid reason for this: Contributing on other topics will give you practice at using the existing guidelines and policies, and this will make you more able to suggest genuine improvements. Andrewa 19:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

History section

Andrewa has created History of University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and Wisconsin State College of Milwaukee two separate articles for UWM's history section. IMO, it is a little too much. Maybe we should move the history section of the article to History of University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and delete the Wisconsin State College of Milwaukee. Miaers 20:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I second that motion. -- CollegeSportsGuy 21:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion is unlikely to gain the required support IMO, but a merge could work well if properly implemented. Would you be happy to provide appropriate redirect targets?

There's certainly a need to correct the excessive duplication of information following your latest edits to History of University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and to implement a little of the MOS. (Suggest you read it.) Andrewa 07:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope your extensive edits to the history article mean that you're no longer suggesting that there should be no history article at all. Suggest discussing the proposed merge at Talk:Wisconsin State College of Milwaukee with a mention at Talk:History of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Andrewa 15:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not a big deal, as long as you don't put two main article links in the history section. Miaers 21:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)