Jump to content

Talk:University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

College of General Studies addition

In 2018, UW Colleges was re-organized where each 2-year campus was moved under the administration of doctoral and comprehensive universities. UWM adopted Waukesha and Washington County, and they were organized under the College of General Studies. To acknowledge the existence, I added a (very) brief line mentioning it. Please refine and add information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cddelgado (talk • contribs) 23:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Archive

Rankings

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

Some believe that Jack Kilby earned a degree from UW-Madison. He did NOT. He was awarded (again awarded) an honorary doctorate from UW-Madison but never attended it to earn a degree. The fact is that he earned (again earned) his Master's from UW-Milwaukee. Please do not remove his name from notable alumni. So, it is not appropriate to discredit Mr. Kilby for his effort as a UW-Milwaukee alum. The following resources support the above-mentioned claim and I see no reason for those to continue removing Mr. Kilby's name from this page. Resources:

1. http://www4.uwm.edu/ceas/ee/about_us/ee_history.cfm 2. http://www.amphilsoc.org/sites/default/files/1510413.pdf 3. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2000/kilby.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.148.54 (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No opposition so added. 72.141.213.228 (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Three dates on the seal, three dates in the infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where to now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Athletics bloat

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

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

Performing arts venues

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

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

Image of City of Milwaukee

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

UWM has close ties with Milwaukee and is located in the city. Putting a photo of Milwaukee in the article helps the readers to get this. Miaers 02:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Um, don't you think the name of the university tips off readers that it is located in the city? Not to mention the first sentence of the article? I don't see how a random photo of downtown Milwaukee helps illustrate that. Do we need to place random images of Chicago in the University of Chicago article or images of Manhattan in NYU for readers to realize that these universities have ties to the cities in their name? I doubt it - this is superfluous. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Especially since UWM is nowhere near the picture in question... Cheers, PaddyM 03:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Again, the image illustrates nothing other than what part of downtown Milwaukee looks like - it has nothing to do with UW-M. this discussion is moved here from my talk page--ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with ZimZalaBim. You should not include an image from downtown Milwaukee in this article. Anyone who wants to see an image of Milwaukee from this article can easily click on the wikilink at the top of this article to get to the city's article. On the other hand, it would appropriate to include a single image of UWM in the Milwaukee article, for UWM is a landmark in Milwaukee. Royalbroil 14:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I strongly concur. An aerial view of the East Side and downtown Milwaukee shot from just north of Sandburg Dorms, to put the University into a geographic context, would be relevant and useful; but not the illo just deleted. --Orange Mike 17:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

By that logic, we should also find a photo of the New England Board of Higher Education to include, since they're mentioned. (See, mere mention of something isn't the criteria for including an image.). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I should say that Milwaukee is the second major subject discussed. Miaers 19:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, unless the photo has something to do with UWM, it is ridiculous to include it. I agree fully with OrangeMike/ZimZalaBim/Royalbroil. Cheers, PaddyM 03:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


The result of the discussion was keep separate. -- Auroranorth 13:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Opening statements

After reading the article, I have decided that the history section of this article has just a little less information than History of University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and I am surprised this hasn't yet been spotted out. Auroranorth 12:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Discussion

  • The "History of" has approximately 2.4 pages worth of history; the main article has approximately 2/3 of a page (on the display I'm currently using). This is the appropriate use of a split-off page, to put information which renders a primary article too unwieldy in size into a separate article. At most, it might be argued that the main page could be trimmed by a word or two here and there, and perhaps the "History of..." be lengthened. --Orange Mike 23:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
We need more publicity on this - this doesn't constitute consensus yet. Auroranorth 14:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I haven't done too close of a check on this, but wouldn't it be more appropriate to take some of the more extraneous information our of the main article and leave it to the history article. Either way, this is whole point of having a spin-off article. Cheers, PaddyM 02:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this should be closed per WP:SNOW - this clearly is the proper use of a secondary article. --ZimZalaBim talk 03:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
This merger doesn't have a 'snowball's chance' - it is very controversial and needs to be discussed by more people. Auroranorth 11:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is controversial about this? The History article is longer and more involved than the main article, has a time-line of dates and is the perfect use of an off-shoot? I also suppport closing based on WP:SNOW. Cheers, PaddyM 15:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
You're right, it doesn't have a snowball's chance, which is why it should be closed. I see little evidence of it being "very controversial". --ZimZalaBim talk 15:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
What about people who haven't edited this article? Auroranorth 11:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Most of them couldn't care less; those who do, would generally agree that this is the appropriate use for a split-off article, to keep the prmary article from getting unduly lengthy, per the Manual of Style. --Orange Mike 13:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
So if most don't look at the History article, why not merge it? Auroranorth 13:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The number of viewers, if even known, is not the proper metric for deciding whether to split/merge sections. Since the history article has some length to it, it is proper to keep it separated. Honestly, I don't understand the motivation behind wanting them merged back. The whole point of hyperlinks is that we can connect two articles. It is better all around. --ZimZalaBim talk 13:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
So why was it split in the first place? Auroranorth 12:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
To conform to the recommendations of the WP Manual of Style regarding excessive length of articles. --Orange Mike 13:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I must protest: the combined articles would still conform to the Manual of Style. Auroranorth 13:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
And I can see that this merger has a snowball's chance in hell of actually going forward, so I close this debate. Auroranorth 13:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Result

The result was keep separate. -- Auroranorth 13:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Administration of the merger

Not to be confused with Wikipedia administrators.

Auroranorth 12:51, 2 September 2007 (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.

Persistent edits by User:76.17.116.98

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

Archatectural/neighborhood issues.

One of the defining characteristics of UWM (I'm an allum)is the neighborhood it sits in. It is surrounded by beautiful old housing stock (especially on the east and north). The community benifits from the housing values the university generates, but also suffers from the problems (traffic, parking, noise) that the university creates. The university, therefore, has to negotiate virtually every expansion with hostile aldermen. The university has decided to pursue expansion off campus (miles away).


Another characteristic of the university is the radical mix of architecture. Some of the old Downer College and Milwaukee State Teachers College buildings are beautiful red brick structures. In the 60's and 70's, however, many mammoth, gray, horribly ugly behemoths were plopped down to accommodate the baby boomers. The student union, for instance, is build like a modified parking garage. The dorms look like soviet housing projects. The Mathematics building looks like the "Evil Corporate Headquarters" in some episode of the twilight zone and the classrooms feel like the basement of a hydroelectric plant. Ditto Chemistry and most of Physics.

If anyone can find an article with architectural criticism or neighborhood relations information, I'd like to see it published here. These may not seem like important topics, but to the students who may be looking to attend UWM, they are very important things to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.97.113.34 (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

History Suggestion

Some of the History is not clear. The merger between the Wisconsin State Colleges (of which Milwaukee was the flagship of the state college system) and the University of Wisconsin (the land grant institution in Madison) did not happen until 1971. As the main article reads, this happened in the 1950's - which is most certainly not true. The school probably became a part of the state college system at that time. For more information consult the first paragraph of this link: http://archives.library.wisc.edu/chancellors/UWSA%20Presidents.htm 24.183.38.132 (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)njbubb

That's grossly incorrect. The merger between UW-Madison and the Milwaukee school happened in 1956. The remainder of the old state college system wasn't merged with the UW system until 1971; but that's irrelevant to UW-Milwaukee. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Rankings Section

This section contains excessive amount of intricate detail that is duplicated at each of the school pages and should be removed. It is currently promotional. Codf1977 (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There are 3 subsections: overal ranking, colleges & schools rankings and Program rankings. Each of these sections needs to have necessary info. They are not excessive. All the info are well-sources figures. There is no advertising about it. Revws (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The inclusion of this much intricate detail that is duplicated at each of the school pages is promotional - Just adding new sub-section brakes does not get away from that. Codf1977 (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Infomation are not supposed to stay only in one article. School and program rankings are key information for University articles. They shouldn't be removed. Revws (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

As you were quick to point out on the talk page of University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee College of Letters and Science (with this edit) that it was about the the school and not the University, so the same must apply here in reverse ? Codf1977 (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry but School and program rankings are key information may be so for University prospectuses they are not for a neutral point of view encyclopaedic article. Codf1977 (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines state;
Per WP:BOOSTER, the rankings should be presented neutrally and without undue weight — do not exclude or re-factor rankings because they are inconveniently low, attempt to include every ranking or all historical rankings, or emphasize rankings of sub-disciplines over rankings of the college or university as a whole. (emphasis mine)
75.2.209.226 (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are you so interested in plastering UW-M's rankings everywhere? They simply demonstrate what a mediocre school it is. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

All university articles in Wikipedia have ranking sections in their articles, which contain overal, individual schools and programs rankings, as long as they have such rankings. These rankings are part of the university infomation that the article should have. There is no advertising about this. You sure can do editcopy if you are not fine with some of the wording. But as long as the university received this much rankings, you can't simply remove them from the article. Edit in an civil and constructive way. Revws (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF is no argument. It is also not an argument to say that you have to include every ranking and frankly I am sure that not every ranking is included and those that are listed are subject to controversy and some are over 16 years old. Given your arguments and comments here your other edits and the prominence of rankings on the individual school pages you have edited or created - it says to me that as far as you are concerned you are a single purpose account with the sole aim of editing of editing the University of Wisconsin pages to best promote the Universities. As for the rankings on this page, given the fact all are repeated on the school page I strongly feel only listing the top level rankings and leave the school and program rankings down to the school pages. Codf1977 (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The NRC Rankings are presented with dates. It is a widely used ranking. I think it is ok for you to move some of the not very top-ranked rankings to other aticles. As for your SPA accusation, it was not justified. [2].04:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You say the NRC Rankings are widely used according to Special:WhatLinksHere/United_States_National_Research_Council_rankings other than University of Wisconsin articles (3 of) there are only four others that link to it
That SPA quote from an admin is taken out of context - it realted solely to taging your entry on the AfD with the SPA template. Codf1977 (talk) 07:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The following world leading universities use NRC Ranking in their Wikipedia articles. There is no reason for you to remove it. The ranking itself only include US top research universities only. So the numbers included in the list is not as large as others.

  • University of Wisconsin–Madison
  • Cornell University
  • University of Chicago Divinity School
  • University of Pittsburgh School of Arts and Sciences
  • New York University Institute of Fine Arts
  • University of California, Berkeley College of Chemistry
  • University of Texas System
  • University of Pennsylvania (links)
  • University of California, San Francisco (links)
  • University of California, Berkeley
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • California Institute of Technology Revws (talk) 09:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Not exactly widely used - there are (according to The digest of Education Stats) some 4,352 degree-granting institutions in the US - if we say only half have a WP article that is still less than 1%.
Anyway that is not my point - my point is that given all the pages on the schools and collages cover there own rankings, to recover it here is just listing intricate detail that is not relevant for this page and the only reason I can see for doing it is a promotional one.Codf1977 (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said the NRC ranking only include top research universities. For those that are not top research universities, there is no way for them to use it. I think you don't know how to make calculations. Revws (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Way to miss the point again - there are 16 articles listed - according to the NRC they surveyed 274 institutions granting Research-Doctorate's - that is still less than 6.5%.
But there is no getting away from the main issue is this is all duplicated information. Codf1977 (talk) 10:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The National Research Council rankings are without a doubt the most comprehensive, highly regarded, and reliable university rankings in the United States. They typically occur about every 10 years. The most recent NRC rankings have been awaited for several years now, but have been delayed. As a result, the 1995 rankings are quite dated, however they're the only ones that exist at this point. The problem with their inclusion here is that the source is someone who re-analyzed the rankings, and as the United States National Research Council rankings article shows, there are several ways to analyze the NRC data. It's also doubtful if such a re-factoring adheres to the College and university article guidelines. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not re-analyzing. It is summarizing instead, which make it easier for common people to understand the NRC study results. H.J. Newton summarized the results in several categories for different purpose-seeking people. It is done by the same person. Revws (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things. "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all." -- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass. 1871.

75.2.209.226 (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Individual School/College Wikipedia pages

Why do none of the Schools/Colleges have a Wikipedia Page? An encyclopaedia also take into account that there are individual academic units that make us a campus, each with it's own unique history and background. {{subst:unsigned 129.89.43.208}} 15:55, 20 October 2010

Because like most such entities they have not established any notability of their own; see WP:N. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Why have dead links then that just redirect back to the University's article? Ex: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/University_of_Wisconsin%E2%80%93Milwaukee_College_of_Health_Sciences just takes you to the UW-Milwaukee article. Is it possible to 're-boot' the School/Colleges Wikipedia Page?; see WP:N. --A UWM Student, Information Professional, and Alumni that wants to update the information for their School. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.222.32 (talk)
Redirects such as that are usually relics of prior efforts to create articles about non-notable subtopics. Rather than delete them entirely, we just make them into redirects. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC) (UWM student, alumnus ["alumni" is a plural], and Wikipedia administrator that strives to keep the Wikipedia coverage of his school impartial)

File:Mke panthers logo.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mke panthers logo.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Mke panthers logo.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Historical University Names

I've adjusted the historical names in the main info box based on what the university was referred to in its own yearbooks for each year, which can be seen in digital form in the [Collections] section of the UWM library's website. The lone exception is the Normal School era, which evidently did not have yearbooks, but was usually referred to as Milwaukee Normal School, Milwaukee Normal, or simply M.N.S. according to other material available from that time. I also included Milwaukee State as an unofficial name since it continued to be referred to as such in the local media even after it became Wisconsin State College, Milwaukee according to articles from the Milwaukee Sentinel from that time on Google News. User:illwauk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.217.121 (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Clarification asked for

University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee#Football Is the club football mentioned here really association football? Peter Horn User talk 23:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

These links all seem useful. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Links modified on main page

Please review the links modified on the main page...—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

✗ Fail: Not much of a message here. Link failed to lead anywhere. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Wisconsin–Milwaukee/Archive_1&oldid=1175390912"