Talk:University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee College of Letters and Science

Redirect
I see no reason why this page should not be a redirect to University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee List of Colleges and Schools as this only a stub and of questionable notability in it's own right. It would keep all the information on the various departments in a easy to see place. If at any time in the future the section at University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee List of Colleges and Schools is expanded it could then be spit off. Codf1977 (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Given Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines which states :

If an institution's faculties, constituent academic colleges, or academic departments are especially notable or significant they may have their own dedicated article (e.g. Jesus College, Oxford, Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania). In general these organizations are not notable (see WP:ORG) and should not be split off from the main institution article in the absence of significant coverage by reliable, independent sources. If some faculties or academic colleges have significance and others do not, it may be the case that the institution's academic programs as a whole are notable. In this case it may be acceptable to create a separate academics article (see Michigan State University academics, Colleges of the University of Oxford)

I am not sure that this constituent academic college is especially notable or significant and have taged it as such and feel it should be merged. Codf1977 (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For the show case Michigan State University academics, Colleges of the University of Oxford in the guideline you provided. These two subarticles have their own Sub-sub articles for all their individual colleges and schools. There is nothing wrong for creating articles for these colleges and schools. As they are notable either individual or as a whole as a major research university in the US and special role in the education in Wiscosin. Your list article is not helpful to the readers, who are lost among a long list of schools when searching for the one they are interested. At last, guidelines are guidance or suggestions, not law. Revws (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This article should be kept. The standard for notability you provided is not clear cut. Besides, significant sources have been provided in the article to show its notability. DJldhu (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Rankings
The rankings section of the article should not be at the top - it is not the most important part of the College. Codf1977 (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

As by way of example :


 * Brown University - Rankings listed after details about the various schools.
 * Columbia_University - Rankings listed after details about the various schools.
 * Cornell University - Rankings listed after details about the various schools.
 * Dartmouth College - Rankings listed in a side box (not as a section) before the various schools, but after history section.
 * Harvard_University - Rankings listed in a side box (not as a section) before the various schools, but after history section.
 * Princeton_University - Rankings listed at the end of the section on Academics
 * University of Pennsylvania - Rankings listed after details about the various schools.
 * Yale University - Rankings listed in a side box (not as a section) after history section and detals about campus (no section detailing Schools).

So out of those 8 NONE give prominence this page did and all that devote a section to rankings list it after more important details such as the history and/or campus. Codf1977 (talk) 12:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a University article. It is a college within a university. Currently there is nobody writing a history section. That's why ranking shows first. Ranking certainly shouldn't be at the botomn. Revws (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine I will move it to after the sections detailing the primary purpose of the organisation which is to educate. Codf1977 (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok I will leave it where you have placed it, however I am reverting to my layout for the following reasons :
 * It is clearer and easer to extract the information in alphabetical order.
 * The basis of the rankings is explained.
 * Codf1977 (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The rankings listed as they appear now in numerical order gives the impression of bias towards the best results. With out clarification of the issues relating to the Criticism of college and university rankings (2007 United States) it does not give the whole picture with relation to at least 61 major Schools, colleges and universities refusing to take part.

The Section also needs tyiding up as it looks a mess. Codf1977 (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The US News & World Report is Wikilinked. The article contains the criticism for the ranking. Your version is actually messy. Revws (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it needs to be clearer that there are issues with it. The hanging table sits over the next section and that still does not address the issue of the order of the rankings - it looks promotional. Codf1977 (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You're out of proportion. If a list of US News & World Report ranking is promotional, then there is no school articles in Wikipedia is neutrual. Revws (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No the way the section is constructed looks promotional, it is one thing to list them A, B, C ,D - it is another to try and format the list in such a way as to make it look better - all I am asking is list the subjects in Alphabetical order - perfectly reasonable. Codf1977 (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It is listed alphabetically. The worst ranked is showing up the first. That's what you want, isn't it? Revws (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * the text is :
 * "The US News & World Report ranked the school's English program 52nd, [1] clinical psychology program 62nd, [2] the physics program 102nd, [3] the psychology program 103rd, [4] the mathematics program 104th,[5] chemistry program 107th, [6] and biological sciences 144th nationally.[7]"


 * I think it should read
 * "The US News & World Report ranked the school's Biological Sciences program 144th, Chemistry program 107th, Clinical Psychology program 62nd, English program 52nd, Mathematics program 104th, Physics program 102nd and the Psychology program 103rd."


 * Codf1977 (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. People the count small number first. This is not promotional. The table list is alphabetical already. Putting the worst the first is certainly is not promotional, but if you change them all this way, it is not neutral. Other schools articles don't write this way. Revws (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I disagree - the ONLY reason for not listing it in Alphabetical order is to be promotional, and tips the section over the line into what looks to me like a press release. Unless you can give me a valid reason why your order is better than Alphabetical, I will tag the section as such. Codf1977 (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)