Wikipedia

Talk:University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire/Archive 1

< Talk:University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire
Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1

Anybody from

Anybody from Eau Claire ever read this page?--Derrickbecker74 21:28, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Totally; University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire is my homepage! :) MicahMN | Talk 19:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yup. Just did. Tomer TALK 22:18, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, it's not a chatroom or a forum here, you give a bad image of Eau Claire.

Cargill Lab 'Classroom'

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Cargill Lab (pictured on the page) is not a representative classroom. It's a private lounge for chosen business majors, and not representative of a UWEC Classroom. Should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.82.58 (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The best Business College in Wisconsin, I agree

Perhaps we should merge the "park school" section with the history section to make the page flow more smoothly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.73.49 (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Bandshell in Intro

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Someone reverted my edit which removed tangential information about the university neighborhood. This information was placed in the introductory paragraph on the university. To defend the inclusiuon of a description of a bandshell in the neighborhood -- a bandshell that has no official relationship with UWEC -- the individual wrote, "The university does not exist in isolation."

MY RESPONSE:

You are quite right that the university does not exist in isolation. However, it would be ridiculous to add a section on Jeff and Jims pizza to the introduction to an article on a university. Imagine, for instance, an introduction to Harvard University talking about an old folks home in the Cambridge neighborhood. Undoubtedly, the university does not "exist in isolation," but that has nothing to do with pertinance. The information you provide might work nicely in a subsection of the article, but it is not in any way appropriate for the introduction of the article. The introduction should be about the university itself, not about some bandshell in the neighborhood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.124.34.81 (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's tell the WHOLE truth. The sentence you deleted was from a paragraph describing the location of the university. The university borders a city park that offers a number of amenities to students and staff. If you feel this information belongs in a different section, why don't you just put it there? Villwock (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Villwock,

I remember deleting something about the Bandshell awhile back. I am the unsigned user that wrote the above paragraph (now 88guy88). I also recently reverted several changes relating to the university and the Bandshell. My reason for doing so was (and is) simple. I don't think the Bandshell is of high importance to the university - it isn't relevant. Do me a favor and check out the article "Wikipedia:Relevance of content."

When you say I need to tell the "WHOLE" truth, I am not sure what you mean. I never denied that the Bandshell was close to the university. Jeff and Jims pizza is also very close to the university, but it would be improper to include the establishment in an encyclopedic article. Again, an area being "close" to a university doesn't necessarily warrent its inclusion in the introduction to an article about a university. Simple.

As I said before, it might be interesting and useful to have a section of the UW-Eau Claire article that swiftly deals with the surrounding area - the bike trail, Water Street, the Bandshell, etc. I think placing a new section underneath the subheading "Students and Campus" might be a good spot. I think this section should be quick and to the point. We don't want the article to become a platform for everyone in Eau Claire to trumpet their own pet cause.

Right now I see two options to resolve our difference of opinion. One: You could help out by creating a new section about the surrounding area of the campus. In that section you could include a mention of the Bandshell. I would have no problem with that. Two: We could bring in an administrator who could sort this problem out for us. As I am currently quite confident that the Bandshill info does not belong in the introduction, I am going to delete it.

Again, feel free to create a new section. If you do, I wll be happy to help edit it with you.

Thanks for helping edit Wikipedia. I appreciate your efforts. 88guy88 (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, it might be best to place the new section beneath the "Notable programs" section of the article. 88guy88 (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Sealdeal.gif Nominated for Deletion

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  An image used in this article, File:Sealdeal.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 26 September 2011
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.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Academic boosterism controversy

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Conversations have been moved from user talk pages to this location for convenience

Hi Mesconsing,

I saw you added the "academic boosterism" tag to the UW-Eau Claire article. All claims made about the university are properly referenced. If you could point to any peacock terms, I would appreciate it. I can't find any. I think the article is disinterested and encyclopedic. 88guy88 (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  • It is a longstanding guideline for college articles that rankings and other notability statements do not belong in the lede. Examples: "UW-Eau Claire has received high marks...", "Notable alumni include..."
  • Vague plaudits don't belong in any WP article. Example: "high marks" - What's that supposed to mean? Specifics only should be mentioned (e.g., ranked x out of y), with citations to objective, reliable sources.
  • "Currently" - this term doesn't belong anywhere because things change over time. You need to specify exactly when.
  • Although many of the peacockisms have citations, they're citations to UWEC promo literature. That's hardly an objective source. Please read the Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines.
  • Overall, the tone and the cherrypicking of "facts" cause problems with this article. Example: The placement rate of chemistry graduates is not a widely accepted standard for evaluating colleges, and seems like a silly item to include in a WP article about any college.
  • Please read Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism.

Mesconsing (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Eau Claire Cont.

Hi Mesconsing,

Thanks for promptly replying to my message. Let's keep our future conversations in a single spot, if you don't mind. I would be happy to continue our discussion on the university's talk page, or right here. Whatever the case, it might become confusing if we post in multiple places.

1) Can you point to any other peacock terms beyond "high marks." Further, is "high marks" really a peacock term or is it simply factual? The statement is sourced quite well. Do me a favor and read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Also, if you could point me to a wiki style guide that specifically disallows any mention of notable alumni in the introductory section of a university article I would appreciate it.

As I tried to explain, the problems with the article aren't as simplistic as just using peacock terms. The entire tone of the article and the severe cherrypicking of "facts" are problematic. Yes, "high marks" is definitely a peacock term. I don't have time to wikilawyer right now, but look at the college and university articles that are good or featured to see what a lead should look like.

2) When you say "vague" plaudits (and again refer only to "high marks") I must again disagree. The comment appears in the introduction to the university. It would be an inappropriate place to expound on the specific rankings of the institution. The statement is heavily sourced in a later section of the article: "reputation."

You're absolutely right. Rankings don't belong in the lead.

3) I am happy to change "currently" to 2012/2011 (or whatever year a particular ranking happens to be from) if you feel this word is innapropriate.

Typically, articles will say something like: "In 2011 USNWR ranked Podunk University 653rd." Use the year the ranking occurred so the reader can determine how recent it is.

4) You write, "Although many of the peacockisms have citations, they're citations to UWEC promo literature. That's hardly an objective source. Please read the Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines." First, please specify what other "peacockisms" you are refering to. Second, the article is sourced with a combination of both UW-Eau Claire articles and articles from specific rankings institutions. I did not see a section of the guidelines article you pointed me to that disallowed citing articles published by a university. The facts that these articles cover are backed up by other articles from the rankings institutions themselves.

Please read the guidelines more carefully and try to avoid wikilawyering. Self-published sources are definitely suspect, although not prohibited.

5) You write, "Overall, the tone and the cherrypicking of "facts" cause problems with this article. Example: The placement rate of chemistry graduates is not a widely accepted standard for evaluating colleges, and seems like a silly item to include in a WP article about any college." Please cite a specific wiki guideline that disallows the inclusion of chemistry to PhD rates. It might seem "silly" to you, but that isn't quite enough. Further, clarify the facts you believe are cherrypicked.

Again, please stop wikilawyering. Mesconsing (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for helping edit this article.

88guy88 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Admin needed

Clearly, an admin is needed to sort this out. Your charge of "wikilawyering" (which allows you to ignore my reasonable, non-confrontational, respectful objections) is inapropriate. Let's not let this discussion devolve into a series of ad hominem attacks.

88guy88 (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I've asked the folks at WikiProject Universities to take a look at the article. So far, the only comments received were that my editing made the article "much better". Mesconsing (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. I would be interested to see those comments. 88guy88 (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

removal of laboratory school section?

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Please explain your reasons for removal of the laboratory school section. It is valid content. The university began as a teachers college and the laboratory school was a major part of that legacy, though it was later shifted down in priorities and now is not considered relevant to the interests of the college. DMahalko (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi -- I just removed the picture this time. The info on the laboratory school at UW-Eau Claire is a nice bit of history, but it isn't essential to understanding the history of the university, so a picture drawing attention to that aspect of the article doesn't make much sense. Also, it doesn't work aesthetically. I left the couple paragraphs you had written on the lab school untouched, though. However, I do think those paragraphs should be shortened a bit. 88guy88 (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with 88guy88 about the centrality of the laboratory school to the article. The length and detail of the information seemed undue emphasis. For that reason, I tried to shorten the wording, while retaining all the essential facts and meaning, but you reverted. -- Mesconsing (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Marching Band

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm new to Wikipedia, but I was thinking about creating a new page about the Marching Band (BMB). Do you think this is too small of a topic to have it's own page? I did a quick search for 'College Marching Bands' and a few other schools showed up so I think it would be appropriate to create a page for the band. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EliasWebb (talk • contribs)

@EliasWebb: Can you find lots of independent published sources covering the band? If so, it may be a candidate for a standalone article. --NeilN talk to me 00:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire. 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) 18:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Wisconsin–Eau_Claire/Archive_1&oldid=1173075263"