Talk:University of Wisconsin

University of Wisconsin as a system

"University of Wisconsin" has been a state-wide higher education system throughout history. Before 1956, University of Wisconsin consisted of the UW-Madison campus together with University of Wisconsin centers and extensions overall Wisconsin. When UW-Milwaukee was created IN 1956, it absorbed a large University of Wisconsin facility in downtown Milwaukee. UW-Parkside and UW-Green Bay campuses were actually built from former University of Wisconsin education facilities in these two regions. The majority of "University of Wisconsin" used in Wikipedia refer to the one that existed before 1956, which basically was a state-wide system. Between 1956 and 1971 University of Wisconsin was the official name of University of Wisconsin (1956-1971). After 1971, this name has been shared by more than a dozen University of Wisconsin campuses. Considering all these factors, I'll suggest directing "University of Wisconsin" to University of Wisconsin System, not just one single campus, for the sake of effectiveness and efficiency for users and editors. Miaers 16:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

1) Please take a look at the links for yourself before making the statement that most links refer to one thing or another; most do not refer to dates prior to 1956. 2) Even if your statement on Wikipedia usage is true (not conceded), your formulation ignores that an overwhelming majority of links relating to dates before 1956 still refer to the Madison campus. See E. P. Wigner, for example, or Otto Hermann Kahn, or C. Wright Mills. Do you really think these links refer to places other than Madison? Dekimasuが... 16:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If the "University of Wisconsin" is used for anything after 1956, it should be fixed by adding a dash. As for the examples you pointed out, it actually refers to the system as whole not just Madison. Your argument sounds like someone is from Wisconsin but not from the US. Miaers 16:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Your analogy doesn't hold water. You are basically saying that Madison can't have a history as an institution prior to 1956, even though we know things that happened, specifically, in Madison. To imply otherwise for these links would be willful ignorance. Can you find me a single link that refers to (a) a time prior to 1956 and (b) a place other than Madison? Dekimasuが... 17:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, University of Wisconsin is a system before 1956. People can attend University of Wisconsin freshman and sophomor centers outside Madison first and then transfer to Madison campus. Even if you think that "University of Wisconsin" before 1956 exclusively refers to Madison only, then all these links should also be fixed by adding a dash. Otherwise, readers will be startled to see why the link leads to a dashed one and there are a lot of other Universities of Wisconsin. Miaers 17:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Since there have been no disagreements, I'll consider it a consencus to direct "University of Wisconsin" to the system article. That is the way how majority of large major public university systems, like University of North Carolina, State University of New York, University of Illinois, University of California, Indiana University, etc. are treated in wikipedia. Miaers 01:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding? There are serious disagreements. That is what the entire contents of this talk page are about. Please do not unilaterally make another redirect as you did earlier. This is nothing close to consensus on this; in fact, the current redirect is in place due to consensus. Have you even read the comments that Dekimasu made? Do not make this move without discussing it further. Cheers, PaddyM 02:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I replied Dekimasu's comments and he didn't disagree further. There was also a consensus on disambig page. So what. There are also serious disagreements on directing to Madison. Miaers 02:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation?

Since no one can seem to agree on any subject having to do with the University of Wisconsin, I propose that we make a request for formal mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. This process should (hopefully) put an end to this constant arguing and edit wars. Please respond with your opinions on this matter. – Lordmontu _{(talk) • (contribs)} 04:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fine to try any method to reach a consensus. University of Wisconsin has been a system throughout history and majority of large major public university systems comparable to University of Wisconsin all direct such page to the system article. Miaers 16:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I dislike the idea that a disagreement on this small scale requires formal intervention, but I wouldn't mind divesting myself of this situation. WP:DAB and I started out as third parties, too, but those outside opinions and the guideline-backed recommendation to look at the links have left behind some dissent with the force of conviction. If everyone can agree to respect the decisions of whatever third parties come next, we should all be better off. Dekimasuよ! 13:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

It seems that nobody is interested in mediation. I'll continue to suggest redirecting University of Wisconsin to University of Wisconsin System. The followings are the reasons:

• University of Wisconsin has been a state-wide system throughout history.
• Most of major large public university systems in wikipedia redirect similar page to the system article.

Miaers 03:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it can be argued both ways. One of the reasons Wikipedia works as well as it does (which is remarkably well but certainly not perfectly) is that, when you can't get consensus, it doesn't really matter which way the decision goes. The majority view, for the moment, seems to be that UW-Madison is the better redirect. Andrewa 12:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Previous discussions didn't consider the fact that University of Wisconsin has been a system throughout history. Anyway, I don't see strong objections. Redirecting to the system article also conforms to the tradition of bringing the benefit of the University to all the places of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin has never been restricted to only Madison campus. Miaers 13:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That isn't editing from a neutral perspective. Once again, did you ever look at the links? The reason you don't see strong objections is because we have stated our objections already. The objections are still there, but it seems hard to alter your perception of the situation. Dekimasuよ! 14:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are not editing from a neutral perspective, ignoring the fact that University of Wisconsin has been a system. How come editing based on facts is not neutral? I've answered your question before. If you look at the What links here, you can see all the University of Wisconsin used should be a system, because it has been a system thoughout history. Miaers 14:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you of something. I was referring to the proposal to "conform to the traditions" of the University of Wisconsin rather than those of Wikipedia. I do not see what you see in the links, so we will have to agree to disagree on that. I'm not sure what else to say at this point. I commend you for arguing in favor of what you think is right, but at some point this discussion will have to move out of the exploration phase. Dekimasuよ! 14:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the tradition thing is POV. It is a fact and part of University of Wisconsin that should be reflected in Wikipedia. It is atually POV to redirect to Madison campus simply because some people think that there is only one University of Wisconsin. Also, Could you point out an example that you think University of Wisconsin used in Wikipedia exclusively refers to Madison campus and can't be replaced with UW-Madison?

I don't thik this discussion should end in any sense because it is not appropriate and doesn't reflect the actual fact. Some articles in wikipediar, however, reflect reality well. For example, University of North Carolina redirects to the system article, even though some of the universities in the system don't use University of North Carolina as their names. They are part of the system anyway. Miaers 14:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this really still such a big issue? Miaers seems to be the only one currently arguing for the redirect, while most other editors either see the benefit of the UW-Madison redirect or have yielded to the majority opinion. If we have to have a mediation, then, so be it, but it seems like Miaers is more interested in not listening to the rational arguments offered by Dekimasu and more interested in simply yelling at everyone else. Can we just let this be for awhile and see if other editors want to jump in and offer new and fresh perspectives on the issue? Cheers, PaddyM 16:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are the one yelling for directing to UW-Madison. Others have begun to stop. Anyway, I don't think we have a consensus on anything about this, and more consideration should be given to actual reality. Miaers 20:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Face it, Miaers, we lost this one. The Madison-centric editors won, and we aren't going to get a mediation granted. I've given up on this one, even though you and I both know you are right in this (if not on some other topics we've argued about). --Orange Mike 21:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Orangemike, I feel sorry to see that you want to give up. But feel free to discuss whenever you think it is necessary. There are obviously some bias on the editing of University of Wisconsin, and some adiminsteditors and editors here don't like my edits. But I will still try my best to correct all possible biase to make it to conform to actual reality and the NPOV guidance. Miaers 22:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Redirecting "University of Wisconsin" to only one of its campus because some people think that there is only one University of Wisconsin is obviously POV. Before 1956, University of Wisconsin was a system that included the Madison campus and centers and extensions allover Wisconsin. Between 1956 and 1971, University of Wisonsin added a second doctoral institution (UW-Milwaukee) and two 4-year campuses (UW-Parkside, UW-Green Bay). Since 1971, 9 more University of Wisconsin campuses have been added. Throughout history, University of Wisconsin has been a system. Directing "University of Wisconsin" to University of Wisconsin System is to conform to NPOV. And this is the way how most large major US public university systems are treated in Wikipedia. (Examples: University of North Carolina, State University of New York, University of Illinois, University of California, Indiana University, etc.). Miaers 23:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The disambiguation page at University of Wisconsin (disambiguation) was set up to reflect that there were other meanings to the phrase, as is the hatnote currently at UW-Madison. It's still somewhat unfortunate that the disambiguation page was deleted when no one involved in the discussion believes there is only one meaning to the phrase. We can always move that disambiguation page to Wikipedia:Deletion review. We also have University of Missouri, University of Minnesota, University of Montana, University of Nebraska, University of Nevada, University of South Carolina, University of Tennessee, and University of Texas that are set up similarly to this one. All of them either redirect to, or are even about, the flagship campus of a university system despite that flagship campus having a different name. Primary topic claims, as per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic, are part of a guideline. It's very unlikely that accepted guidelines are systemic NPOV violations. Dekimasuよ! 02:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've repeated this many times. Most of the examples you listed here are not compared to the case of University of Wisconsin, which is the third largest public university system in the US. The disambiguation page has nothing to do here. I'm talking about redirecting it to University of Wisconsin System. Miaers 05:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The University of Texas System is larger than the University of Wisconsin System and University of Texas redirects to the flagship campus (1). The State University of New York system is bigger (2) but there is nothing called the University of New York. The University of California is an article about the system itself, in a system that doesn't have a flagship campus. However, that is also larger (3) than the University of Wisconsin system. I don't know off the top of my head if any others are larger, but it doesn't seem to be the third-largest, nor do I understand how that applies to your argument. You said "most are treated this way in Wikipedia" and I simply disagreed through the use of many counterexamples.

There is nothing called University of Wisconsin. The University of Wisconsin-Madison isn't, and the University of Wisconsin System isn't either. The undifferentiated name has no official value. We have already agreed upon that. That is why we look at the links. Dekimasuよ! 06:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not politically right to say flagship. But Berkeley is the first campus of University of California. Also State University of New York is about the system. I don't see your point. Anyway, if University of Wisconsin is not the 3rd, then it is fourth. Two out of the 3 still make the majority. More importantly, you should consider the system feature of University of Wisconsin, which actually makes it more appropriate to be an article about the system.Miaers 06:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

(Flagship is linked and sourced five times in the lead of University of Texas-Austin, so if you really think it's not an acceptable term for an encyclopedia article, you might want to try to discuss that with editors there. UCLA is slightly larger than Berkeley and has a similar reputation, which is why I said there was no flagship. No individual school has ever claimed the SUNY title for itself, to the best of my knowledge. Dekimasuよ! 13:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC))

There are comments about this on flagship#University campuses. Flagship is the first campus not the largest. All the universities of the New York State claim SUNY title. I don't think the enrollment of the University of Texas in Wikipediar is accurate. The figure on its official website is actually more than 160,000. It is probably smaller than that of University of Wisconsin. Miaers 06:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It has more than 180,000 by sight addition at its site, and as I said, I still don't understand why it matters. The important part of my comment is: "There is nothing called University of Wisconsin. The University of Wisconsin-Madison isn't, and the University of Wisconsin System isn't either. The undifferentiated name has no official value. We have already agreed upon that. That is why we look at the links." Please reply to the part about the links.

This has happened before as well. I previously noted that your formulation means "Madison can't have a history as an institution prior to 1956, even though we know things that happened, specifically, in Madison.... Can you find me a single link that refers to (a) a time prior to 1956 and (b) a place other than Madison?" and you replied tangentially. Please address this problem as well, if you can. Dekimasuよ! 07:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If you think no university is University of Wiscosin, that will make redirecting to University of Wisconsin System the only solution, because all of its campuses are listed there.

I'd answered your question before. University of Wisconsin had been a system before 1956. Students can attend a freshmam-sophomore center outside Madison. Professors taught both in Madison and outside Madison. Miaers 14:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

These answers do not address my concerns or make any reference to the links. Last time when I didn't reply you took it as a sign of my assent, so I thought I should make that clear here. Separately, if you have some evidence that Madison had an off-campus program in its early years, that might be good information for the Madison article. Dekimasuよ! 13:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I provided evidence before. UW-Milwaukee absorbed a large University of Wisconsin facility in Milwaukee in 1956 (sources: key dattes, History of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee). UW-Parkside(source: UW-Parkside website and the article itself) and UW-Green Bay were built from the University of Wisconsin facilties. In addition there were 10 University of Wisconsin freshman-sophomore centers (now colleges) and statewide Extension. (source: UW System the former University of Wisconsin part) Miaers 13:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

UW-Parkside did not exist at all before the 1960s (here) and the wisconsin.edu source you cite likewise does not say anything about a time prior to 1956. It says that Madison and Milwaukee were merged in 1956, but this rather implies that they were independent before that, does it not? Once again, this was not my question for this talk page, but for improving the Madison article. Dekimasuよ! 13:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The UW-Milwaukee site is useful in pointing out that the "University of Wisconsin" was offering day and evening classes in Milwaukee beginning in 1892. However, it is disingenuous to have pasted the link into an old post I had already replied to, and then to say that I was ignoring your sources. Dekimasuよ! 14:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see your points here, Dekimasu. Before 1960s, UW-Parkside was called University of Wisconsin. The former University of Wisconsin on the Wisconsin.edu site starts from the year when the first University of Wisconsin campus was created. These discussions are all relevant for the University of Wisconsin redirect. If you want to have other discussions about Madison. Why don't you discuss it there? Anyway, I feel you are too biased on this. You don't even accept authoritative evidence. Miaers 14:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what was authoritative there, but per its own website, UW-Parkside was more likely to be called "rolling farmland and woods" before 1966.

If you don't reply to the consequential parts of my posts, this only goes in circles. All I'm asking for you to do is find links that show there is ambiguity. If you can point to links and say "this means Parkside, but it says [[University of Wisconsin]]... this means Stout, but it says [[University of Wisconsin]]", that is what I will be convinced by. I can't find them. It is not very polite to say repeatedly that my reason for disagreeing with you is that I'm biased, and I have no connection to any of these institutions. Please remember my prior comment about the improbability of systemic bias in guidelines like WP:DAB. Dekimasuよ! 14:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The current site of UW-Parkside was selected, but it was built from University of Wisconsin at Kenosha and Racine. Please read the whole website. There is former University of Wisconsin, whose official name is exactly "University of Wisconsin". By the way, I'm not talking about disambig, but the redirect. Miaers 15:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

We are still talking, as always, about WP:Disambiguation#Primary topic. Dekimasuよ! 22:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

(Having read the UW-Parkside article, and now the website as well, I see no indication that the institution has any history prior to 1965. Dekimasuよ! 05:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC))

I'm using the contents from UW-Parkside's website to let you know the existence of University of Wisconsin in Kenosha and Racine, as you asked to let me provide evidence on this. I think you need to read carefully about this andthis, which clearly indicates the existence of University of Wisconsin in these regions and how UW-Parkside was created.

There is no disambig page here, Dekimasu. There is only a redirect page and I'm suggesting to make it redirect to University of Wisconsin System based on the reasons I listed above. Miaers 22:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"Disambiguation" is about more than "disambiguation pages". This concerns WP:Disambiguation#Disambiguation links, even if there is no separate disambiguation page involved. How the redirect is constituted depends on our understanding of the primary topic. The argument can be made independently of the text of the WP:DAB guideline if you like; we see that the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy states: "This page in a nutshell: Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." This means that if the vast majority of people think they are linking to University of Wisconsin-Madison when they type [[University of Wisconsin]], we should allow what they have typed to redirect the consumers of that text to the article on the official name of the school. As I said in what is now the top section of the page, nearly every single link to this redirect even after the creation of the system in 1971 is meant to refer to Madison. Dekimasuよ! 04:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The thing here is that University of Wisconsin has been a system throughout history. (some of the sources: [1], [2], [3]). University of Wisconsin began to offer classes in Milwaukee as early as 1892 (source: [4]). There is no single University of Wisconsin link in Wikipedia explicitly says that it refers to Madison only. You can't make judgements on your POV instead of facts backed by authoritativ evidence. Students can attend University of Wisconsin freshman-sophomore centers outside Madison first and then transfer to Madison. Professors taught both in and outside Madison. Miaers 17:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

These were the first seven links I clicked on just now. They all refer to Madison.

• Arizona Cardinals
• Aberdeen, South Dakota
• Students for a Democratic Society
• Jayaprakash Narayan
• List of nuclear reactors
• Houston Nutt
• Dictionary of American Regional English

Dekimasuよ! 18:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"University of Wisconsin in Madison" actually uses "University of Wisconsin" as a system. The sport team of University of Wisconsin before 1956 definitely reprents both Madison and the state-wide University of Wisconsin centers and extensions. I simply don't see your points. Miaers 19:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you did see my point, because you went in and changed the links yourself after my post. Do you understand that changing every reference is what would have to be done to 99% of all links to [[University of Wisconsin]], not just now, but forever off into the future? Rather than create work for ourselves, the redirect does the work for us. Also note that it is generally not recommended and actually considered a waste of server resources to change redirects that go where they are supposed to go. I will try to believe you that you don't see my points, but I am pretty sure I have made them. Dekimasuよ! 09:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed some of these links because currently "University of Wisconsin" is redirecting to Madison. They would not need be fixed if it is redirected to the system. You just don't make sense. Miaers 15:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm? On the subject of performance, Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken (the target of your waste of server resources link above) points to Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance.

Your point about most internal wikilinks to University of Wisconsin currently relating to the Madison campus is relevant IMO, but perhaps not the show stopper it might first appear. Of course this should be the case if the current redirect points to Madison, and should become more and more the case as time passes with this redirect in place (which I hope is what Maiers is doing... otherwise it would be a violation of WP:POINT). But on the other hand, if the redirect were to point to the article on the system for a time (as it did at times in the past), then the reverse is what should happen.

The question of where new links to University of Wisconsin naively created will tend to point is also a good one, but again not a show stopper. At best it only takes account of how the editors perceive the term. To readers without prior knowledge of the topic, it's a fair and probable guess that (for example) University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and University of Wisconsin-Whitewater are both parts of the University of Wisconsin. Now, we know that this seemingly self-evident statement is not true (for reasons that I guess make sense in Wisconsin). But I'd argue that it's our readers, not our editors, who are our primary customers, and that it's important to correct this fairly predictable mistake as gently and early in their reading experience as possible. Food for thought? Andrewa 17:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Your first point is taken. However, if we are going to reflect hypothetically on what the average reader of the encyclopedia is thinking when s/he types "University of Wisconsin" in the searchbox, I find it highly unlikely that it will have anything to do with the University of Wisconsin System. I don't like the idea of reflecting on this because it's difficult territory to traverse in anything other than anecdotal terms... so our differences of opinion are unlikely to be resolved that way. I'll do it once, though.

I believe that most people in the United States know only one university in Wisconsin, which is Madison. Beyond the fact that it has the largest enrollment, the idea that the university is called "the University of Wisconsin" is likely caused by the fact that the university's sports teams are referred to exclusively and prominently as the Wisconsin Badgers, never the "Wisconsin-Madison Badgers". This is never the case for other schools in the University of Wisconsin System. Outside of academic circles, in which Madison has a high reputation, and outside of the Midwest region, where people may recognize other school names from the Horizon League or through having visited the state, these teams are the major source of publicity for the "University of Wisconsin".

I tried to show that most editors think they are linking to Madison when they type "University of Wisconsin". Unless we assume that the readers know more than the editors (which I think is unlikely), most readers will not know that the term is ambiguous. I believe that rather than "correcting the mistake", it is our responsibility to point readers to the article they wish to see. And if 10% of readers want to see the system article, which I think is a generous number, there is always the hatnote at the top of University of Wisconsin-Madison. Dekimasuよ! 18:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You may well be right that most people in the United States know only one university in Wisconsin, but so what? Don't the rest of us matter?

I think you've accidentally hit the underlying issue right on the head here. The feeling I get from this whole debate is that the people with UW-Madison connections are thinking only of Madison, those with UW-Milwaukee connections only of Milwaukee, those with Wisconsin connections but not either of those campuses only of Wisconsin, etc...

For your part, you're guessing what the average reader will think, and probably correctly. And your average reader is of course American. To take that further, I guess the average reader of the relevant articles already has a connection with UW somewhere. But they aren't and never were (for example) the primary users of the (deleted) disambiguation page. Its main function was to help people who don't know which article they want.

Food for thought? Andrewa 21:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the disambiguation page should ever have been deleted... but I don't think it should be at this title, either. It's still on deletion review if you have anything to say about it. However, I doubt I'm being ethnocentric (and I don't live in America); the hatnote retains the necessary functionality and people who want to see the system article can see it. Users who have some prior knowledge of the "University of Wisconsin" are the ones likely to type the term into the search box; these users are mostly in North America.

Your comment raises a broader question: how do most users begin a search for a term of which they have no prior knowledge? This is again delving into psyche, so I'd like to avoid it, but it seems to me that most users find new topics on Wikipedia through clicking links. It's an idea inherent in the core wiki practice of adding links to articles. For links like those I mentioned above, we would increase the confusion of a Japanese user by sending him or her to the system article rather than to the intended one. Dekimasuよ! 02:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, we are coming from different perspectives. You want to consider how most users find articles. I want to help all users find them.

Yes, it's now relisted on WP:DRV, and after long consideration (and other pressing commitments) I've decided to contribute there. If you really think that the decision to delete was wrong (as I do), why not say that explicitly on DRV too? Andrewa 03:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Dekimasu, please be aware of NPOV. Most people know University of Wisconsin as a system. If you look at the "what links here" of University of Wisconsin-Madison, you can see there are more than 1,000 articles use this name when they refer to UW Madison campus not something else. On the other hand, most of the "University of Wisconsin" used here refers to the university before 1956, which was basically a state-wide system. As for people in Wisconsin, most people actually refer UW-Madison as Madison because there are many University of Wisconsin campuses in Wisconsin. Of course there are people from Madison who like to say that only the Madison campus is University of Wisconsin. But that is just POV. Miaers 21:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Dekimasu. Miaers, if you are worried about the links, then go through all of them that link to University of Wisconsin and change the necessary ones to the University of Wisconsin (former) article. The redirect should be primarily for when readers type "University of Wisconsin" into the search box. – Lordmontu _{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware of NPOV. If someone wants to look for a UW campus, like University of Wisconsin-Superior, he definitely will type University of Wisconsin in Wikipedia. Miaers 03:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Miaers, absolutly NOBODY (in Wisconsin or outside of Wisconsin) will refer to Superior as only "University of Wisconsin." It will be University of Wisconsin-Superior. The University of Wisconsin began in Madison, and the largest and most well known campus is still in Madison. It doesn't matter if University of Wisconsin encompassed a few other campuses for 15 years of its 150 year history. As of right now, in 2007, the University of Wisconsin primarily refers to its campus in Madison. The University of Wisconsin should most definitely redirect to UW-Madison, as it currently does. I don't mind if there is a disambiguation page, but "University of Wisconsin" should not redirect there. – Lordmontu _{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There are people from Madison do as you said. But there are people who don't. For example, a lot people say Arnold Schwarzenegger‎ graduated from "University of Wisconsin", because he graduated from the Superior campus. Many people even say Phil Katz graduated from UW-Madison, who actually graduated from UW-Milwaukee. You can look at the editing history of Phil Katz article to verify this. It was actually me who changed it to Milwaukee. Another student from UW-Milwaukee, Alberto Fujimori, is also frequently being said as a graduate from University of Wisconsin because he got a MS from Milwaukee. You can also verify this by checking the editing history of Fujimori article. "University of Wisconsin" is a system to most people.

University of Wisconsin had campuses outside Madison as early as 19th century. I've provided evidence above, please stop talking nonesense.

Also Dekimasu mentioned Japanese audience. I think this is an English encyclopedia not a Japanese one. Miaers 19:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Miaers, even if you go through the entire wikipedia library and edit all University of Wisconsin links to instead say University of Wisconsin-Madison, you aren't going to change the redirect. As has repeatedly been pointed out, EVERYONE outside of Wisconsin refers to UW-Madison as the UW or University of Wisconsin and you seem to be the only person who is confused by the naming issue. Cheers, PaddyM 02:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't say that Miaers is the only one who feels that the term is far less ambiguous than you seem to be willing to admit. He has cited a couple of examples (Arnold and Fujimori); I am certain there are a lot more that the Madison-centric view doesn't perceive. --Orange Mike 02:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

PaddyM. The number of University of Wisconsin-Madison used to refer to the Madison campus here, outnumbers that of "University of Wisconsin", even before I started to change some of them. It is better use facts instead of POVs when you say your points.Miaers 02:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation Page

I noticed that Miaers, again, made the decision himself to change the redirect to the System article and claimed that there was some kind of discussion and resultant consensus on the talk page . . . I don't remember that sort of agreement happening, so I've reverted the edits. Cheers, PaddyM 00:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

PaddyM, redirecting to the system article is per the historical facts and the current situation of University of Wisconsin. I have given enough time for response in the above discussion. And nobody has so far provided convincing reasions why "University of Wisconsin" shouldn't redirect to University of Wisconsin System. The current disambig page doesn't include the fact that University of Wisconin had been a state-wide system before 1956 (sources provided in the discussion above). Also it gives no reference to individual University of Wisconsin campuses. Only redirecting to the system article can solve all the problems. If there is no further convincing reasons provided, I'll revert PaddyM's edit. Miaers 00:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you have to actually give people a chance to respond before making your major edit changes. Secondly, there are plenty of convincing reasons above, but you have chosen to summarily ignore them and then claim that everyone except you is violating a NPOV, despite the fact that this is not the case. As Dekimasu said previously, a person typing University of Wisconsin into the search box is going to be looking for Madison a majority of the time, which is where the redirect should point. For those readers who are looking for the System article, the hatnote provides more than adequate information for them to find what they need. Anyway, please don't start reverting and making drastic changes until other people have had the chance to weigh in on the issue. Cheers, PaddyM 01:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is riduculous. Please stop adding POVs. I thought this is over. People can type University of Wisconsin to search individual campuses, not just Madison campus. Miaers 01:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Individual University of Wisconsin campuses

I'm surprised to see that "University of Wisconsin (disambiguation)" was restored after being deleted. But this disambig page does't solve the problem at all. No individual University of Wisconsin campuses are shown on that page except Madison. But people actually type University of Wisconsin in wikipedia to search individual University of Wisconsin campuses. More importantly, the search doesn't go to the disambig page at all. Miaers 02:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, Maiers, I don't think that people actually do type "University of Wisconsin" when looking for other campuses. You are the one that constantly calls for us to prove our facts and opinions with outside references. You should do the same in this instance. However, it is nearly impossible to prove your argument...so we will be arguing back and forth for a much longer time. People who have knowlegde of the UW system will most likey type "UW-Superior" or "UW-Platteville", etc... People who do not have knowlegde of the UW system then probably don't even know of the campuses outside of Madison. I experienced this just today. I wanted to find the page for the University affiliated with the Texas Longhorns, so I typed "University of Texas" into the search box. And it took me straight to the University of Texas at Austin article, which is the one that I wanted. I have no clue about the other campuses that comprise the "University of Texas". But my search took me straight to where I wanted to go. I know that Maiers will quickly respond with some sort of argument, saying something like "all users won't be searching for the campus at Madison/Austin." or "The University of Wisconsin comprises more than the Madison campus" and so forth. I DON'T CARE what is "politically correct" or what will mend the broken hearts of UW-Milwaukee students after finding out that their campus isn't as big or as well-known as Madison (Maiers--I know this is POV, so don't point it out anymore!) I am simply saying, as I have said before, that "University of Wisconsin" primarily refers to the campus at Madison in the rest of the world outside of Milwaukee, especially if the reader has little knowlege of the whole UW System. – Lordmontu _{(talk) • (contribs)} 04:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Lordmontu, I don't think what you personaly think really matters. There are a lot universities are called UW. Most people actually don't know how these initials are related to Wiconsin. Not to mention type them for searching. I'll wait for a while for some response. Otherwise, I'll consider it is ok to redirect to the University of Wisconsin System article, where it should go to. Miaers 14:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This pattern is getting old and tired. Miaers: "I'm right." Others: Counter Arugment. Miaers: "You don't make sense" or "I don't get your point." "I'm doing what I want to, anyhow, and I'm going to keep doing this over and over again under I get my way." Madmaxmarchhare 16:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This begans to be fun. Please keep your personal feelings out of here. I don't think these nonsense help your point in any way. Miaers 16:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Miaers, this entire thing is about your personal feelings. I'll stop if you do.. Madmaxmarchhare 16:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I don't attach personal feelings to my edits. I use facts backed by authoritative sources. Please keep your personal feelings off here. Jesus! I am having goosebumps. Miaers 17:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hunh? This has been your personal, emotional crusade for months now. You have "facts," everyone else who doesn't agree with your viewpoint has "nonsense." There's a fairly simple point I'm trying to make here.. Madmaxmarchhare 17:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Madmaxmaarchhare, nobody questioned the accuracy of the facts I pointed so far. Don't be ridiculous. Also please stop being silly on focusing me. That's disgusting.Miaers 17:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Miaers, everyone has given you reasonable counter arguments. Just because you don't find them to be "factual" and find them "nonssense," doesn't mean that they are. We all know what _you_ believe, but you may want to consider that others have opinions that not only differ from yours, but may have as much validity. Seriouly, I would just like to know, do you just plan to keep arguing your "facts" until you've got what you want, or is there another endgame? If it's the former, why should anyone bother to entertain your "facts" at all if all you're going for is a win at any and all costs? Really, if your entire purpose here is just to continue to do this until you get your way, why should anyone assume good faith on your part? Madmaxmarchhare 17:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Your arrogantly perverse and mulish behavior makes it necessary to focus on you. While you are occasionally right, you nonetheless persist in making yourself so obnoxious to everyone else involved in editing articles as to drive the less patient away. That is about you. --Orange Mike 17:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't care what you think of me. You are actually obnoxious in ingoring facts and engaging personal attacks. Miaers 17:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Now Orange Mike is the baddy, and he's been a staunch ally of yours for most of this. But, Again, what are you going to do? I, and probably a lot of people here want to know.. are you just going to keep brow-beating until you get your way or is there another exit strategy for you? Madmaxmarchhare 17:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the obnoxiousness of you. I've never consider him as my ally or something. I've been consistent throughout on redirecting to the system article. He has never supported this suggestion, because he thinks others are all Madison centered including himself. Miaers 17:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you even read what people write on this talk page? OrangeMike has consistently supported you, despite your willingness to attack him. He has never engaged in personal attacks and has tried to soften everyone to your opinions on many an occasion. He is also, in fact, not Madison centered, but has repeatedly debated in favor of the non-Madison-centric crowd. On this issue, Miaers, you seem to have alienated yourself. Everyone here is trying to remain civil, yet you just go to your old ad hominem standby and call us obnoxious and ignore our questions in favor of your usual "recall NPOV" comments. Lets have a cup of tea and remember why we're here, Miaers. Cheers, PaddyM 17:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to get yourself intoxicated, everytime your edit sth. Miaers 17:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Maiers.. what's the end game. Please answer--are you just going to keep doing this until you get your way, or not? Madmaxmarchhare 18:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this a threat or someting? What do you think you are? Miaers 18:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Miaers, firstly, I asked "please." Secondly, if all you're going to do is brow-beat us until you "win" your argument, why should anyone bother to respond? I'm still not sure why you can't answer the question "are you just going to do this until you win?" Madmaxmarchhare 19:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You can threat a person with a "please". What does that matter. Whether you want to participate in a discussion depends on you. You can't threaten others not to make discussions. Miaers 19:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So, ok, either way, do you plan to argue your points until you prevail, or do you have another outcome that you're willing to accept? Madmaxmarchhare 19:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware of what you are. I don't need to answer your questions. I discuss whenever I think it is necessary and accept any sound arguments, unlike you. Miaers 19:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then we're at a stalemate. What do you suggest that we do? What will work for you? Madmaxmarchhare 19:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? "University of Wisconsin" should redirect to University of Wisconsin System. If you care about Madison that much, you can put a hatnote there. Miaers 19:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, what you suggest isn't going to happen, so what is your plan? Madmaxmarchhare 19:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Madmaxmarchare. Stop all of your nonsense. It is none of your business what I do. And nobody knows what is gonna happen in the future. Miaers 20:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds good then, let's put this to rest for now and come back to it later. Thanks for all of your ideas.. maybe next time it will go your way.. Madmaxmarchhare 21:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

New evidence supporting redirecting University of Wisconsin to the System article

New evidence has been emerged in Wikipedia that shows University of Wisconsin had been a system even before 1956 when University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee was created.

Nobel laureate, Jack Kilby, received his MS in Electronic Engineering from University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee not in Madison in 1950 (sources:Encyclopædia Britannica , and his Autobiography). The University of Wisconsin Milwaukee extension where he did his graduate study came into existence as early as 1892 and became part of the current University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee in 1956. (source: Key Dates in History). Other authoritative sources indicating University of Wisconsin has been a system include Official University of Wisconsin System website, Official University of Wisconsin-Parkside website 1 and Official University of Wisconsin-Parkside website 2.

It is basically wrong to to say the University of Wisconsin before 1956 was UW-Madison, because it can refer to a campus outside Madison, like the Jack Kilby case. It is much more appropriate to redirect University of Wisconsin to the system article. Since students during that time can make transfers and professors taught in campuses inside and/or outside Madison.

In addition, University of Wisconsin was the official name of the institution(1956-1971) formed by Madison (doctoral), Milwaukee (doctoral), Parkside, Greenbay, 10 freshmen and sophomore centers, and the state-wide extension. In 1971, the number of Universities that use University of Wisconsin as their names was increased by 9.

All of the above support redirecting University of Wisconsin to the system article, which shows all the campuses, the system as a whole and all the history information. Miaers 03:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirecting University of Wisconsin to UW-Madison does not mean that "the University of Wisconsin before 1956 was x" (or y, or z). It is not a finding of fact, or espousal of a certain viewpoint. It only reflects that a preponderance of searches and links for "University of Wisconsin" refer to UW-Madison. I don't know how to make this any clearer.

Further, although I didn't and don't intend to bring this up elsewhere, I have noted the actions of the editor who added this information to Jack Kilby. While doing my best to assume good faith, given the pattern of edits, I feel it likely that Special:Contributions/12.119.186.158 represents you editing Wikipedia during a block. If you were the source of the information you mention, it is disingenous to say that "new evidence has emerged in Wikipedia". I hope that it's not the case, and please disregard this part of my comment if I'm wrong. Dekimasuよ! 03:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are wrong and POV again. Most of the University of Wisconsin used in Wikipedia refer to the old one that existed before 1956. It was a system not just Madison campus. Miaers 04:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that we have been through the same issue previously several times, I do not see anything in your comment that I can reply to in a way that is likely to facilitate productive discussion. Finally, the photo of Jack Kilby you've uploaded as "public domain" is another copyright violation. The Texas Instruments page you cite specifically states, "TI grants additional permission to download, reproduce and distribute the photos presented on this page only in printed media... and in electronic versions, such as on the World Wide Web, of those printed media" (emphasis mine)." This is at least the sixth picture you've uploaded that we've had to have the same licensing conversation about. Please take the time to review Wikipedia:Image use policy before uploading others, because these copyright issues are taking up an inordinate amount of our editing time, both yours and mine. Dekimasuよ! 04:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has nothing to do with the photo. If you want to have it deleted, feel free. It is a mistake in goodwill. You said before that you are told to "keep your paws off this", but you have never stopped preventing redirecting to the system article. The Madison problem can be easily fixed by putting a hatnote on the top of the system article. Miaers 20:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Other editors asked me to continue discussing the issue with you. I haven't touched the redirect since that time. You indicated that you equate silence with assent. Dekimasuよ! 03:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: University of Wisconsin redirect

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• "University of Wisconsin" has been a state-wide higher education system throughout history. Before 1956, University of Wisconsin consisted of the UW-Madison campus together with 10 freshman-sophomore centers and state-wide extensions.(source: University of Wisconsin System history, Jack Kilby attended University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, Contents from UW-Milwaukee, Contents from UW-Parkside 1, Contents from UW-Parkside 2). Between 1956 and 1971, it added a second doctorate institution in Milwaukee and two 4-year campuses at Parkside and Green Bay. In 1997 it added 9 more 4-year campuses in Wisconsin. Redirecting "University of Wisconsin" to its Madison campus and ignoring other campuses is totally inappropriate. Most major large public systems in Wikipedia like University of North Carolina, State University of New York, University of Illinois, University of California, Indiana University, etc. all have such disambiguous page redirected to their system article. University of Wisconsin actually has more reasons to redirect to the system article. But these editors/administrator here persistently prevent redirecting it to University of Wisconsin System. The only rationale they have is the the POV that only the Madison campus is University of Wisconsin, which is obviously a violation of NPOV, no promoting and no academic boosterism. Miaers 01:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• While there are many universities in Wisconsin, only one is commonly referred to as "the University of Wisconsin". Approximately 99% of the 800+ mainspace links to this page are intended to direct to University of Wisconsin-Madison. Noting this, I support a redirect of University of Wisconsin to University of Wisconsin-Madison and having the disambiguation page at University of Wisconsin (disambiguation). This is the course of action recommended by the "primary topic" section of the Wikipedia:Disambiguation guideline. Doing otherwise creates unnecessary work for users clicking internal links and for people doing link repair. Many of the other points raised by Miaers here have been discussed at length on the talk page above and towards the end of the third archive. Dekimasuよ! 23:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually stated your POV in the previous statement. Most of the University of Wisconsin used here are the one existed before 1956, which is a system. For example, Jack Kilby attended University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. I am sure there are also many others. Without sufficient other information, nobody really knows whether it exclusively refers to Madison. Miaers 18:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the section for statements. Please do not reply to my statement here. Let the outside parties judge our statements for themselves. That's the point of this process. I do not allow that most of the links refer to a period before 1956. Thorough discussion on that topic can be seen above, and I invite the third parties to read through it. I invite you to remove both this comment and the one above, though not one or the other. Dekimasuよ! 03:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I totally understand that you consider yourself something special here like an administrator. But you allow it or not, there are hundreds of University of Wisconsin used in Wikipedia to refer to the institution exited before 1956. Also I think you need to improve yourself on NPOV, no promoting and no academic boosterism,etc, to be a good administrator. Miaers 23:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As I told another editor whose comments were aimed at you: that's not helpful or welcome. --ElKevbo 23:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

(I am not an administrator. Dekimasuよ! 02:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC))

Noting a diff that will help people follow this line of conversation, having been obfuscated: [5]. Apparently I am being incivil in this RfC as well. If someone can explain this to me, please do so. Thanks. Dekimasuよ! 00:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This is so unspeakable. That will explain everythings. Please stop pretending to be an administrator and stop claiming you came from xxx or something. Miaers 03:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal comments are not relevant to this discussion, and I never claimed to be an administrator. At one point you asked me on my talk page whether I was an administrator, and I specifically said no. My attention was attracted to this page because of a listing at WP:DPM, and I came here from Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation. Those are all facts. That said, I don't think I have done much of anything unbecoming of an administrator or any other editor here. The only exception is that I made a lapse in judgment when I discussed your photo uploads on this talk page rather than restricting those comments to your user talk, and for that I am perfectly willing to apologize. Dekimasuよ! 05:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think I might qualify as "involved" because I've made a couple of comments on this issue due to requests at WP:RM. Or maybe I'm not involved, I don't see that it matters. I'd just like to say that the redirect is supported by consensus confirmed in many discussions and conforms to the expectations of most people who aren't from Wisconsin (i.e. that when most people think of the U. of Wisconsin they have the Madison campus in mind). Furthermore, I find Miaers' continued insistence on endless discussion quite odd, and think that it probably qualifies as disruptive editing at this point--he's been arguing his point since September 2006, and as far as I can see has found little support. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've participated in this discussion for a while, but by no means "disruptive". I'm trying to solve this dispute through a proper chanel by requesting comments from outsiders. I also agreed to the mediation proposed by Lordmontu. But some editors/administors just don't agree to proceed. Who's disruptive? If you read these discussions you can see there are strong opposition to redirecting "University of Wisconsin" to Madison. More importantly, some people here are obviously promoting academic boosterism despite the fact that University of Wisconsin has been a system throughout history. People have enough reasons to question the validity of the current arrangement. Miaers 18:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion with Miaers has been going on so long that I don't even know what we are discussing any longer. As Dekimasu states, University of Wisconsin overwhelmingly refers to UW-Madison in Wikipedia, and I contend that it also refers to UW-Madison in the real world. That being said, the best option in this case is to refer University of Wisconsin to the Madison page in order to reduce the number of different links that various users will have to click-through in order to find Madison. It's consistently the same repeated statements by editors with actual facts and then Miaers calling us POV-pushers. Cheers, PaddyM 18:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• I support leaving the redirection to the Madison campus. I understand that it's a difficult decision but it's been my experience as one who works in higher education that most people are referring to the flagship campus when they name an institution. My undergraduate alma mater, the University of Tennessee, experiences the same thing. In fact, I can tell many people that I earned my undergraduate degree at "Tennessee" and they know that I mean the Knoxville campus. The current Wikipedia article reflects that viewpoint. I further understand that this may be handled differently for other institutions and systems (although I think the vast majority or even all of them should redirect to the flagship campus) but not for this one. When someone mentions the "University of Wisconsin" or even just "Wisconsin," I know they are most likely talking about the Madison campus. If they or I are referring to the state system then the word "system" is appended. --ElKevbo 18:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Honestly speaking, if you do not add Knoxville. I have no idea which school you graduated. Miaers 19:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Only 25% of University of Wisconsin students go to the Madison campus. Therefore I cannot see how the Madison article should be the target of the redirect. - Chardish

I don't think that the number of students at one institution can be accurately used to determine the outcome of this discussion. But in the interest of fairness and completeness, here's are the enrollment figures and the percentage of the total UW system from IPEDS:

Institution	FTE	Percentage
University of Wisconsin-Madison	40793	24.6%
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee	27502	16.6%
University of Wisconsin Colleges	12374	7.5%
University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh	11433	6.9%
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater	10750	6.5%
University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire	10688	6.4%
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse	9397	5.7%
University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point	8747	5.3%
University of Wisconsin-Stout	8227	5.0%
University of Wisconsin-Platteville	6493	3.9%
University of Wisconsin-River Falls	6118	3.7%
University of Wisconsin-Green Bay	5628	3.4%
University of Wisconsin-Parkside	4923	3.0%
University of Wisconsin-Superior	2872	1.7%

So, with one exception, the Madison campus is several times larger than the other campuses. If these enrollment figures are consistent, it's easy to see how the number of Madison alumni dwarfs those of other campuses and creates a "network effect." Given the age of the Madison campus (it was the first founded, in 1848) it's easy to see why it's the most well known of the UW campuses and the top hit in Google when one searches for "University of Wisconsin." I realize that Google Page Rank is not a good measure of notability but it is is a good measure of popularity.

I also note that the Madison campus has a webpage at http://wisc.edu whereas all other campuses have URLs indicating their location. I realize the system has their webpage at http://wisconsin.edu but that does not seriously affect my argument.

Hence my stance remains unchanged. While I sympathize with the plight of the System and other, newer, and smaller campuses in the Wisconsin system, for most people the common name "University of Wisconsin" refers to the campus at Madison, not the entire system or the controlling body of the system. --ElKevbo 23:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Chardish. This system is too large, and Madison overweights Milwaukee only by 8%. With the addition of new college in Milwaukee. This number will drecrease further. "University of Wisconsin" should redirect to the system article. Miaers 18:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Is that even English? Does anyone even know what you are talking about? "Madison overweight Milwaukee"??? My apologies... There is no new information being added to this debate (nor has there been for some time now). Additionally, I have no idea what the above comment means, so could Miaers please offer some further explanation. Cheers, PaddyM 19:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey now - that's not helpful or welcome. --ElKevbo 19:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on the appropriateness of Paddy's remarks, I think you're starting to see the frustration that we've all been experiencing with this. It's one thing to have a strong point, make your argument, but understand that you're making a proposal, not an ultimatum. I think many of us feel that Miaers has all but voided any presumptions we may have had about his good faith. He's been brow-beating, plain and simple, and we're all getting tired of it. He gives us "facts," and then we argue about it. When we fail to argue with him for awhile because we're tired of it, he either unilaterally makes the change (because he says that are silence is the same as agreement) or he just comes up with some "new" argument (which really isn't new) will all new "facts" and we go at it again. It's tiring, and now we've got this to deal with, too, which adds to the frustration again. Please see our conversation re: "endgames" which is posted above this. There's a difference between a proposal and an ultimatum, and what we're getting here in the latter, not the former, and it's become a real hassle. Madmaxmarchhare 19:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me just repeat my belief that the disruptive editing guideline is applicable here. That guideline suggests that a productive course of action at this point would be opening a user conduct RFC on Miaers. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your frustration but as long he or she confines his or her actions to Talk pages and other dispute resolution processes, I'm not particularly inclined to worry about it. He or she is welcome to discuss the issue forever as long as I am concerned. If and when it rises beyond discussion to taking action against clear consensus or even lacking consensus, then my feelings will almost certainly change. I'm sure that those of you who have been involved for longer have different viewpoints and opinions and you're definitely entitled to them. --ElKevbo 19:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is something that I'll leave up to editors who are more regularly involved in these pages. However, given Miaers recent request to send this matter to ArbCom (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#University_of_Wisconsin_redirect) it seems like this dispute is going to continue until an outside party gives it a firm resolution. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, just what do you mean by "Madison overweights Milwaukee only by 8%" and from where are you obtaining your figures? If I understand your comment correctly, it is not in line with the numbers above I pulled from IPEDS. --ElKevbo 22:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The total enrollment of UW-Madison accounts for 24.6% of University of Wisconsin (System) enrollment. That number is only 8% more than that of UW-Milwaukee. Isn't that obvious? I guess PaddyM figured this out himself. Miaers 22:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, hell. Do I have to give back my degree in mathematics now? :) --ElKevbo 22:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Miaers is wrong again. The numbers indicate that Madison has an enrollment of 20% more students than Milwaukee, a much different number than he claims. True it only accounts for 8% more of the total, but this number is misleading when talking about actual students. But, since he'll claim that this is just POV, I honestly don't know why I bother. Cheers, PaddyM 22:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not good at math. But I think this is highschool algebra. FTE stands for Full-time equivalent. If you add the percentage numbers of all these schools, you will get 100%. How can you have a 20%. :-) Miaers 23:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Typically FTE stands for "Full-time Enrollment" in the higher education context (at least in America; I can't speak for other countries) but you've got the right concept. It's worth pointing out that you must be explicit in your comparisons when dealing with multiple measures. I understand your point that when computed as a percentage of the total enrollment of all of the Wisconsin campuses (including the 2-year campus; it is arguable if it should be included). But it would also be valid to state, using the figures above, that the Madison campus is 43% larger than the Milwaukee campus. It depends on context and viewpoint. Damned lies and statistics, right? --ElKevbo 23:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

From these figures I see Milwaukee enrollment is about 70% of that Madison. The whole discussion so far is like this math dispute. Some people can't tell the right from the wrong. Miaers 23:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Miaers is commenting on the statements of involved parties, and I believe that this is an invalid approach. The involved parties already know Miaers's opinion. Also, this informal mediation will not work if the involved parties (including those who agree with me) take over the discussion section for disinterested parties. Please let the disinterested parties discuss the matter amongst themselves. Dekimasuよ! 03:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Part of this comment was mooted today when Miaers changed the format of the RfC. I still believe there should be no comments on the opening statments and that the point of this is to hear the views of outside parties, which doesn't happen when the previously-involved editors are highly involved in the discussion. Dekimasuよ! 02:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I, too, don't particularly care for anyone to refactor the format of an ongoing discussion. Why was this done, Miaers? --ElKevbo 02:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Today the "please don't refactor" part of the discussion was refactored. I have reverted that edit. If an outside editor agrees with the change, please reverse my reversion. Dekimasuよ! 01:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Statements by people previously uninvolved in this discussion are outside comments. As I understand, this is the right format. Miaers 03:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Just responding to the RfC, I've taken some time to read through the comments here and quite frankly I'm annoyed. There is quite obvously a consensus to redirect to University of Wisconsin-Madison and to create a disambig page, this is also common sense editting practice & as pointed out by Dekimasu this is in line with disambig policy. I am totally baffled by Miaers's RfC ("a violation of NPOV, no promoting and no academic boosterism") and considering their behaviour in this discussion I must say that I agree with User:Akhilleus that Miaers's beahviour constitutes disruptive editting. It is not appropriate for users to game the system to push a pov or to delay consensus edits--Cailil ^talk 23:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you purposedly comment on me, I feel obliged to reply. First, nobody force you to participate in this discussion, not to mention I annoyed you. Second, I only revert the current arrangement once. How can I be disruptive? Third, Please point out what my POV is. Is there anything I've said is groundless? Have you ever read the previous discussion? Miaers 01:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Miaers, I would strongly recommend that you stop replying to every comment that disagrees with your position; it's one of the things that people find annoying. Secondly, please remember that you've been harping on this issue for over half a year now. After this amount of time, your inability to realize that there is a strong consensus to redirect to University of Wisconsin-Madison is disruptive, and so is continually re-opening discussion on an issue that should have been dead and buried a long time ago. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It took centuries for human kind to realize that the earth is not the center of the university. And a lot of people were annoyed by this finding at that time. Miaers 01:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Miaers, you've already been referred to the disruptive editing guideline; I now request that you look at Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, particularly the section on "Righting Great Wrongs." --Akhilleus (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sick of these personal attacks against me here. I'm not editing anything. It is only a redirect. There is not much to edit. All the things I've said are verifiable and NPOV. Please make sure you know what you are talking about. Miaers 02:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm putting my opinion in comments because my prior involvement with the disputed article is solely limited to a pair of comments on the DRV page for the redirect, and a single comment on the deletion debate for the redirect ongoing currently, I consider myself to be uninvolved in the locus of the dispute, and have not edited either article in question. In the interest of full disclosure I am a former student of UW- Madison and a current student of UWM. In my opinion, both colloquial usage and more formal analysis seem to support the redirect in question, google turns up UW-madison as the number three hit (below Washington and Washington's Imap software) for the search string "UW". That said, if it becomes a matter of contention, I think that the guiding principle should be the usability of the encyclopedia. Do we really lose anything by disambiguation? Anyone inputing the search term would still be able to quite easily locate the article for both the UW system and UW-madison with only an additional click. While it seems to me that a direct link to the page makes the most sense, it would be a trivial matter to redirect anything mispointed to the disambiguation page to the correct article in question. This dispute seems to be largely divisive at this point, with both sides heavily entrenched, but I still hold out hope for a simple solution that could be amicable to all parties with minimal compromise. Wintermut3 07:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin (disambiguation) nominated for deletion

Editors with an interest in this article and the related discussions may also be interested in commenting on this deletion nomination. --ElKevbo 04:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)