Talk:University of Wisconsin/Archive 2

Name (2006)
I thought this was done, but the page is back here now..Michigan is still at University of Michigan, not Michigan, Ann Arbor, etc.. Madmaxmarchhare 07:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The shortened name "University of Wisconsin" is potentially confusing, especially for users not familiar with the UW system (e.g. nonregional U.S. readers and foreign readers) as there are MANY schools carrying the University of Wisconsin name; any one of these schools could legitimately be referred to as the University of Wisconsin. The article itself states "University of Wisconsin–Madison" is the correct came of the school as well and uses this name in the first sentence of the article. Additionally, the school's official seal as shown on the article page says UW Madison, as do the school's diplomas. Consequently, the article name was brought in line with all of the other UW schools to avoid confusion. (If other article names are potentially confusing as well, they should be changed, not held up as examples of best practice. Not suggesting the UMich article cited is such an example; just saying....) &rArr;  B. Rossow  Talk|Contr 12:18, Sunday  April 9   2006  (UTC)

I think protocol here would have been to discuss it first, especially since the move to University of Wisconsin was already discussed prior and justification was made. I see from your talk page that not everyone is particularly happy with your lack of dialog (re: Stanford, etc.). I'm not so against this change that I'm going to rush to change it back, but I think you may want to have these discussions first rather than later, if anything, for the sake of politic. Madmaxmarchhare 14:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * When the Stanford move was made, a guideline was in place directing the move and as such it really didn't merit discussion. Since then, it has been changed to a "proposed" guideline. The Stanford article has been moved back and I have not opposed it and won't unless and until said guideline once again becomes "official." &rArr; B. Rossow  Talk|Contr 15:51, Sunday  April 9   2006  (UTC)

We have been through this discussion before, and it was very controversial. Moving the page with no discussion was uncalled for. I am for moving it back to University of Wisconsin; it's what most people refer to the university nationally, it's the flagship university of the system, etc. No one is going to think that you're talking about Plattville or Milwaukee if you call the place UW. For a bigger discussion about this issue, see Requested moves/University of Maryland, College Park --BaronLarf 15:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Nationally, perhaps. However, Wikipedia has an international audience. Having degrees from another UW school, I assure you that on an international level (not to mention domestically as well) there is no broad knwoledge that UW refers specifically (and only?) to the Madison school. From what I could tell prior to (and even subsequent to) the move, there was little discussion directly related to UW-Madison. Wikipedia naming conventions direct that pages be named so that there is no confusion; "University of Wisconsin" alone creates significant confusion for people not familiar with the situation. I can attest from direct, personal experience that people DO question which campus when discussing the UW. International students from around the world have attended the various schools in the UW System and having interacted with countless people over the past decade or more about the UW schools, I assure you that "University of Wisconsin" alone creates a problem for international readers. I know what it generally refers to, but by no means does everyone. &rArr;  B. Rossow  Talk|Contr 15:51, Sunday  April 9   2006  (UTC)

Brossow, your track record on this is a bit spotty. I actually understand where you're coming from, but right or not, it's gonna be a good idea to bring this up. There's also the case that you may not get what you want, no matter how right you feel. Either way, we can debate this topic futher. Why don't you move the University of Michigan page and see what you get? I'm curious... Madmaxmarchhare 17:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I beg to differ. The Stanford move was based on an existing guideline. Other than that, the only disputed move was the Stony Brook Simon's Rock article, which was voted on, supported by the majority, and upheld by an admin. Other than that, there have been no problems or complaints that I'm aware of with regard to other moves. I don't really consider that a "spotty" record. &rArr; B. Rossow  Talk|Contr 07:36, Monday  April 10   2006  (UTC)
 * Actually, the Simon's Rock College of Bard issue was controversial. I can't find where the discussion about Stony Brook was, but as far as I can see, there's only one admin (Nightstallion) has supported you on your WP:NC(S)-supported crusade. Jesuschex 21:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Simon's Rock is what I meant. ~ʘ~ B. Rossow   talk  contr 15:01, Thursday  April 13   2006  (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand brossow's point. Does he have any evidence to support the idea that lots of people don't think of Madison when one says "University of Wisconsin?" The idea that people internationally don't know this seems deeply garbled to me. Both internationally and nationally, most people have only heard of UW in Madison. It is a major national research university, with a famous athletics program. The other UW schools are generally only known to people in Wisconsin, and (in the case of UW-Milwaukee), for occasional sporting victories, in which context they are quite explicitly never called just "Wisconsin" (Wisconsin-Milwaukee is much more like to be just called "Milwaukee"). If someone who went to another UW school said they went to the "University of Wisconsin," I would assume this was a purposeful attempt to mislead people into thinking that they went to the school in Madison, because that name is closely associated with the flagship school. john k 15:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure garbled is the word you were looking for, but I can infer what you're trying to say. For nearly seven years I worked with dozens if not hundreds of incoming international students, some on one-year exchanges and some coming for the full degree programs, on a non-Madison UW campus. A huge percentage of these students referred to our non-Madison campus as simply UW or the University of Wisconsin. On the other hand, my father, who has his doctorate from UW-Madison, refers to the campus as just that: UW-Madison. I have absolutely no doubt that many, many people know the Madison campus as simply "University of Wisconsin." I don't dispute that at all. The problem is that many people, right or wrong, also use that shortened version to refer to other UW schools as well. Thus there is a degree of confusion created by using the truncated name as the article title. It's simple to demonstrate the benefits of using the correct name for the school; I fail, however, to see the downside of it. I suggest that, egos aside, we name the Madison campus article using the same convention as every other UW school and using the name that the school itself presents as most correct, and use the "University of Wisconsin" page as a redirect to the UW System article instead. &rArr; B. Rossow  Talk|Contr 17:32, Monday  April 10   2006  (UTC)

I'm not sure I do, either. After talking to people in several countries including Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and several European varieties, they all think of the University of Wisconsin as the campus in Madison. Either way, this had been discussed before, and before a move was made, I thought it would have been a respectful, at the very least, to acknowledge the work others have already put into this issue. If you want, the people at Maryland have gone through this as well, etc. Madmaxmarchhare 15:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Were these people you say you talked to already familiar with the UW-Madison school? Assuming yes, that's hardly an unbiased sample. I've talked with countless numbers of people who aren't familiar with this convention. With regard to the previous discussion, I only saw a couple VERY brief comments about it from a year ago with no formal discussion of a proposed move. I really didn't (and still don't) see the harm or the controversy in giving the school article its correct name (egos aside, since I know there are some who don't see the other UW schools as "real" universities). And with regard to the Maryland discussion, and more to the point, the result of the Maryland discussion is precisely what I'm proposing here: that the UW page point to a dab page or similar (UW System) and that the various UW campuses be named in parallel, including Madison. And that was done for a system in which only five campuses carried the UMaryland name; UW has 26 such campuses! Given that you hold up the Maryland discussion as an example, I guess I don't see why this is controversial for you. &rArr;  B. Rossow  Talk|Contr 17:32, Monday  April 10   2006  (UTC)

Brossow, I'm sure that no matter what, you'll continue to turn and twist this in your favor. Just move on to some other school (please, with all due respect) if you're so convinced that you're right; I'm sure you'll find plenty of schools with this same issue (Texas and Michigan come to mind). I'm just not sure why there's such a problem with the idea of bringing something up like this first, no matter what? It seems respectful, to me, anyhow, and easier than trying to defend your actions after the fact. Madmaxmarchhare 18:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, it seems illogical to suggest that I move on if I think I'm right. I happen to have a personal interest in the UW system articles, unlike with the schools you mentioned, and would like this resolved. It makes little sense to me to have the Madison campus different from all the other campuses in terms of article name when there is demonstrable confusion created by such and no demonstrable harm in making the move. There is a precedent for the move with the history of the Maryland situation you brought up earlier. So what's the basis for the opposition? I take issue with your characterization that I'm turning and twisting things here. You presented the Maryland debate; I pointed out that their resolution agreed with what I believe should happen here — no twisting! I gave some personal testimony about my experiences with international students on a non-Madison UW campus — no twisting there, either. I presented evidence of what at least one doctoral graduate from UW-Madison calls the university — nope, no twisting, just a link to a web page. I don't need an apology by any means, but I think it's rather off-base to say I twisted and turned things in my favor. :-( &rArr; B. Rossow  Talk|Contr 19:57, Monday  April 10   2006  (UTC)
 * And speaking of apologies, I do apologize for causing a stir here. I honestly didn't think it would cause such a debate or I would have asked first. Given little evidence of debate on the subject and given WP:NC(S), which at the time was presented as an official guideline, I made the move in good faith. At this point I regret how it has come about but I hope that a productive dialogue can take place and provide considerate resolution for everyone, not just for those who favor the status quo. &rArr; B. Rossow  Talk|Contr 20:02, Monday  April 10   2006  (UTC)
 * That's fine, and if you remember rightly, from my second paragraph, I never typed that I was necessarily opposed to the switch, so characterizing me as in opposition to your moving the page is simply incorrect. What I've tried to explain to you (as has others, on several pages), which you now seem to get, is that protocol is important here, and just slapping down a wikilink to _your_ justification is probably insufficient for a move this controversial (as BaronLarf and I have been trying to point out). Also, this isn't the only time you've stirred things up or have been accused of twisting things around (the quote from the Stanford page is "Why must you repeatedly use the slippery slope fallacy?"). I can assume from your profile and from what you have typed that you're at least old enough to be able to understand that there's probably more to be gained from paragraphs such as the one above than, at least what appears to me, defensiveness, obstinacy, and curtness (defensiveness to the point where you don't even seem to remember or understand the point I'm even trying to make). Is it worth quibbling over the smallest word (spotty, garbled, twisting, etc.) here, or is there something that you're trying to move forward? On a final note, I merely suggested that you move on because it really seems like you need a break from this, but I don't mind moving forward, if you're truly apt to giving protocol and positive discussion a try. If that's the case, how about we halt the ticky-tacky stuff here and see where we can end up with this as a community? Madmaxmarchhare 21:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know how many of you care about usage out here in the Wisconsin hinterland, but out here, when you say "University of Wisconsin", people think "Madison", but when they're talking about UW-Madison, that's exactly what they say, i.e., "UW-Madison", not "The University of Wisconsin". When people make reference to "The UW", more often than not, what they're actually referring to is their most regionally accessible, i.e., "local" campus, not Madison, or, frequently, to the University of Wisconsin System as a whole.  For that reason, I would recommend making the UW-Madhattan article University of Wisconsin-Madison, and make University of Wisconsin be a redirect to University of Wisconsin System.  The very beginning of that article makes it clear that Madison is the flagship school, and any unnecessary confusion is avoided.  If people fail to see this proposal for the undeniable epitome of wisdom that it is, can we at least agree to change the disambig at the top of the Madison article to say "University of Wisconsin" instead of just "UW"?  Tom e rtalk  04:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with TShilo12 that when people say "University of Wisconsin", other people understand that they're referring to Madison. For that reason, I'm very much against having University of Wisconsin redirect to the system as a whole.  I oppose moving the UW article to UW-Madison, but I oppose even stronger having the UW article link to the system.  Whatever happens, someone typing in "University of Wisconsin" should be redirected to the flagship campus, not to an article on the system as a whole.  I have never heard anyone say "University of Wisconsin" when they were referring to the entire UW system.  --BaronLarf 05:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow! Talk about twisting my words out of context!  I never meant to imply that, just because people understand that egomanical buffoons mean "University of Wisconsin-Madison" when they say "University of Wisconsin", that that is how "University of Wisconsin" is universally understood!  What I said was that people understand that, when [although I didn't clarify] bozos refer to Madison as "The University of Wisconsin".  I believe I was VERY CLEAR in saying that when [not dealing with such egomaniacs, at least] people say "UW", people assume reference to the, to quote myself, regionally most accessible campus of the UW system...which, as any moron w/ a map of Wisconsin in front of them, especially one w/ UW campi highlighted, can readily see does not even remotely have UW-Mad as its "central" campus.  (UWSP comes closest, in that respect...)  What I was saying is that people understand "Madison", but when they want to specifically refer to Madison, they invariably say "UW-Madison",  not  "UW".  "UW" is _UNIVERSALLY_, at least outside the myopic world of Madison, a reference to the UW SYSTEM as a whole...which is why I said to make University of Wisconsin a redirect to University of Wisconsin System.  Anyone reading this, PLEASE, do not take the above claim of "agreement" [and then complete misrepresentation of everything I said] as actual agreement...it's nothing short of intellectual subterfuge.  I don't agree with anything in the above statement...in fact, it's almost a 180° argument to that which I forwarded in the statement to which it claimed agreement!  Tom e rtalk  08:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Two people have now presented testimony that people do NOT universally know UW refers to the Madison campus. Point "University of Wisconsin" to a new dab page if it makes more sense, parallel to what happened with the UMaryland situation. But the bottom line is that, despite some people's limited experience here, not EVERYONE by a long shot knows that University of Wisconsin is supposed to refer only to Madison. ~ʘ~ B. Rossow   talk  contr 12:48, Wednesday  April 12   2006  (UTC)
 * While that certainly may be true, I'm not sure if what you're pointing out is the only issue involved. There are few things that are universal, so I'm not sure if your metric is in-line with what opposing viewpoints are using as their standard(apples/oranges). In any case, I think what some people are arguing for is that there is a well-accepted tradition of calling the oldest or primary campus of a university by it's original name, which hardly, if ever, included the city that it's located in. For an institution as large and as notable as a university, this carries substantial weight as is part reality. BaronLarf's point about no one calling the system itself the "University of Wisconsin" makes sense, however (although I guess maybe there's an odd individual or two out there that might), but there is a sizable contingent of people who call the Madision campus just that. I'm not, at this point, taking a stand either way, but I just wanted to point out that we're not trying to take bits and pieces of an argument here (which would be sophistry), we're trying to see the issue as a whole. There seem to be good reasons on both sides of this, and both sets are right in their own way. Madmaxmarchhare 14:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

UW-Madison is not the University of Wisconsin; the official name, per the website, of the campus at Madison is the "University of Wisconsin-Madison." Based on my understanding of cataloging principles to use items' proper names, if this article is only about the Madison campus, it should not reside at University of Wisconsin.

Given this, and that the unsanctioned "University of Wisconsin" name is ambiguous, how about this proposed compromise:
 * 1) Move this article to University of Wisconsin-Madison
 * 2) Place a hard redirect at University of Wisconsin to University of Wisconsin-Madison
 * 3) On the top of this article, say something a little more informative, such as:
 * "University of Wisconsin" redirects here; for other institutions and campuses in the University of Wisconsin, see University of Wisconsin System.

Hope that all makes sense! --John Hubbard 22:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC) (UWM employee, no the other one)


 * We are to use most common name, not official name. And I don't see what good your compromise does, if we still have University of Wisconsin redirecting to the article on the school in Madison. Either way you have a disambiguation notice up top. john k 04:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Rather than comment in my own words, I am simply going to reference two long-standing, community-approved Wikipedia guidelines with some of my own emphasis added for clarity and a gentle reminder that more than two dozen institutions of higher education in Wisconsin share the "University of Wisconsin" moniker:
 * Naming conventions (common names) says, "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things."
 * Naming conventions (precision) says, "Please, do not write or put an article on a page with an ambiguously-named title as though that title had no other meanings!"
 * ~ʘ~ B. Rossow   talk  contr 15:17, Thursday  April 13   2006  (UTC)
 * And, as with many Wikipedia guidelines, there are multitudes of exceptions to this. Here are a few:
 * Concordia University&mdash; even though there are many Concordia Universities, the article with this name is about the largest and most well-known one. There is a prominent disambig message on the top.
 * Washington&mdash; the article with this name is about the state, even though there are a multitude of possible uses for the term, including Washington, D.C.. Prominent disambig message at the top.
 * Martin Luther King&mdash; redirects to the person most people think of, though there are a few people with that name. Prominent disambig message at top.
 * 911&mdash; the article here is about the year, though 911 also refers to the number or 9/11. Prominent disambig at top.
 * Cheers. --BaronLarf 18:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Examples that violate well-established guidelines are poor examples at best. Further, none of those examples you offered could legitimately refer to more than two dozen other subjects. It has now been suggested by three people that the current name creates confusion and is potentially misleading. The current situation directly and demonstrably violates at least two Wikipedia naming guidelines. An easy solution has been proposed. Why the opposition? ~ʘ~ B. Rossow   talk  contr 18:56, Thursday  April 13   2006  (UTC)
 * "Examples that violate well-established guidelines are poor examples at best." That is not logical in the least.  If BaronLarf is trying to prove a point through examples, than examples that prove his point are good examples.  His point was that it's okay to use common names that might create some sort of ambiguity, as long as you put a prominent disambiguation statement at the top.  That's really what the whole point of disambiguation links is. (--Jesuschex, previously unsigned)

I'm sorry, but this whole "legitimately refer to more than two dozen other subjects" thing is ridiculous. I give you London and Paris. Besides Greater London and the City of London, there are 27 places named London listed at London (disambiguation). There's about the same number of places named "Paris" listed at Paris (disambiguation). And, guess what, people in Ontario, when referring to "London," probably often mean the city in Ontario, and not the one in England. And it is completely legitimate for them to do so. That doesn't mean that we should move London and Paris to other locations because of the supposed possibility for confusion. The school in Madison's fame relative to the other UW campuses is comparable to the fame of a major world city over smaller cities (some of them reasonably important, like London, Ontario) of the same name. john k 01:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee is known as UWM. Are we now supposed to refer to Wisconsin as UWM? I don't think so. Official flagships (there were two) notwithstanding, I think this article is fine where it is, especially considering that it's becoming more and more likely that UWM is changing their name to the University of Milwaukee. (UW-Madison in this story is put to distinguish itself from UWM.) I can tell you from living in Wisconsin (a la BaronLarf) that it's referred to as UW around here. The school's sports logo is a red 'W'. Also, I know it's not the strongest comparsion, but how about we just start naming celebrity articles by their birth names, instead of most commonly known names, if this change happens and takes hold? Should Rich Gannon go to Richard Gannon instead? Should Ringo Starr be at Richard Starkey? Should Bill Clinton be at William Clinton? SushiGeek 05:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I feel as though my comments above were completely misappropriated...so please, read my rebuttal above. Tom e rtalk 08:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

As a completely non-biased outsider stumbling across this page, it seems most logical to me, not knowing anything about the University of Wisconsin, to link "University of Wiconsin" to a disambig page where, if you are so inclined, you can link to your "flagship university" page. However, I must note that on the University of Wisconsin System website, they do not indicate that Madison is the "main" university and it resides on the list with other universities, alphabetised. Also, let me state that I am dumbfounded as to why this argument has gone on so long. The most logical move, following Wikipedia standards, would be to make this as least confusing as possible which in its current state, it is not. As I mentioned earlier, just a simple disambig or just link to the list of schools. To assume that most people assume that the UofW is the UofW Madison is inane. I, personally, see UW or UofW as the University of Waterloo. Finally, as an outsider I also feel that being linked to this page rather than the list of universities (perhaps detailing that Madison is the most reknown) is simply illogical. 72.137.43.90 21:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Just my $0.02: Across the top of my diploma it reads, in big, bold letters, "University of Wisconsin-Madison." JakeApple 03:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am a brand new student at UW-Madison, and every single time I told people I was going to attend graduate school at the "University of Wisconsin" they ALWAYS asked me to specify which campus. Outside of Wisconsin, at least it seems to me, "University of Wisconsin-Madison" is the only way to refer to the school. That's my $0.02 as well, so I agree with JakeApple Chiwara 21:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * UW-Madision is the first campus of University of Wisconsin. In the past decades, the University of Wisconsin has expanded to 13 universities. It is more appropriate to direct University of Wisconsin to University of Wisconsin System. I also find that's how University of California and University of Illinois are presented in Wiki. They don't just go directly to the first campus. Miaers 15:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought this was already pretty well-hashed out, but now we're back at constant redirect wars. The compromise proposed by John Hubbard makes the most sense to me.  My $.02 says to make this page redirect to UW-Madison since it is the most well-known and everyone whom I went to school with there refers to it as 'the UW'. Cheers, PaddyM 20:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain why the expansion thing I pointed out shouldn't be considered? Miaers 18:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. The reason we should point to UW-Madison is b/c it is the most common name.  Including a dismabig link directly at the top of the page would easily redirect anyone who is looking for the "System" page, while keeping everyone looking for information about the most commonly referred to university as Madison.  As BaronLarf poipnted out earlier, there are plenty of examples in wikipedia where a disambig link is placed on top of the commonly used page, and then people can easily navigate from there.  Cheers, PaddyM 19:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think there is some ego going on here. Many people when they talk about University of Wisconsin, they actually refer to the whole system, not just Madison. Besides the official name of the Madison campus is University of Wisconsin-Madison not University of Wisconsin. Anyway, the Madison campus is already indentified as the flagship campu of the University of Wisconsin system article. It doesn't bring any troubles to readers at all, if University of Wisconsin is directed to the University of Wisconsin System page. Wscsn 15:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * University of Wisconsin appears on the official names of all the members of UW system. And there is also a second Doctoral institution-UWM in the system. Based on these facts, I will suggest redirect Universtiy of Wisconsin to University of Wisconsin System. Wscsn 16:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, everybody. If there is no further disagreements, I'll redirect this page to University of Wisconsin System. Miaers 20:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Plenty of further disagreements, please do not re-link this page without an obvious concensus. Thank you. Madmaxmarchhare 21:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have disagreements, please bring them out in 24 hours. Otherwise, it will be considered illegitimate. University of Wisconsin is a system. This is a fact. There are already predecesors for such redirection in Wikipedia, for example, University of California and University of Illinois. Miaers 21:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * With all respect, I'm not sure why you're "laying down the law" here, and, from what I can tell, given your post on my page, you may not have even read _this_ discussion. In any case, look above for my disagreements with this move. Also, see University of Texas and University of Michigan for pages that still link the the primary, and well-known campus. Madmaxmarchhare 01:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as a graduate of the University of Wisconsin - Madison, I say this article should use the institution's official name, and "University of Wisconsin" should be a disambig. page that points both to UW System and this article. -JakeApple 01:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Madmaxmarchhare. Actually a lot of people argued against you in the discussion. The majority of the discussion so far is that UW-Madision should be distinguished from University of Wisconsin, which is ambiguous. The best way to do this is to redirect University of Wisconsin to University of Wisconsin System. The two campuses of University of Michigan, besides Ann Arbor are too small. They are not even comparable to the UW case. Your University of Texas example has some credits. But my University of California and University of Illinois examples outnumber you. University of Wiscon includes UW-Milwaukee, a doctorate institution of international and national influence in addition to other 10 UW universities, which all have very good national reputation. It is just not right to stash these UW universities under UW-Madison. If someone want to look up one of these universities in Wikipedia, it will take them two clicks to find them. That's just not acceptable. Anyway, it seems that you are the only one who strongly oppose the redirection move. So if there is no further arguements, I'll redirect Universtiy of Wisconsin to Universtiy of Wisconsin System to make it fair. Miaers 15:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * To me, a life-long resident of the state, as well as an alum of two different UW campuses, the term "University of Wisconsin" encompasses the whole system - the 13 four-year institutions as well as the 13 two-year institutions. -JakeApple 16:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I also oppose putting this redirect in place. Anyone outside of Wisconsin is rarely aware of more than one university, with UWM being the exception. When you are talking about the universities within the WI system, the UW always comes to mind first, being the flagship and the most universally recognized. Our system is not the same as California, which has many recognized state univiersities (e.g, UCLA, UC-Berkley, etc.); we simply have one major institution and many minor tributaries. My opinion is to leave the disambig link at the top and keep University of Wisconsin as Madison. PaddyM 16:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think one UWM exception is enough to redirect this page to UW system. That's how University of Illinois is presented. Miaers 16:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking as a Wisconsin resident (and as someone who has attended none of the universities in the UW System), I think it's ludicrous to redirect "University of Wisconsin" to the "University of Wisconsin System". When someone says "University of Wisconsin," they mean the institution in Madison.  True, they may often spell it out and say "University of Wisconsin-Madison," but no one that I know has ever said "University of Wisconsin" to apply to the entire system.  These issues should be decided on a case-by-case basis and with common usage considered; simply citing what someone does with the University of Illinois or the University at Buffalo doesn't therefore show that we show make the change with the University of Wisconsin


 * I've made this remark several times in the past few years, because this debate seems to happen once a year, and no one will ever be fully satisfied by the result. But a cut and paste move as was recently tried by Miaers is shortsighted and wrong, since it's just going to get reverted anyhow and creates more work for us administrators who then have to piece back together the page history.  We must come to a consensus before moving a page.  --BaronLarf 21:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, University at Buffalo definitely refers to the university at Buffalo. I don't see how this example is useful here. Anyway, we are now doing a thorough disscussion to make a consensus now. By the way I didn't copy and paste the page. I only redirected it. I don't see why it is ludicrous to redirect "University of Wisconsin" to the "University of Wisconsin System". As many editors have pointed out. Some people use University of Wisconsin to refer to UW-Madison, while others use it to refer to University of Wisconsin system. There is no point arguing about this. The truth of fact is that University of Wisconsin is a system now. Maybe it will take sometime for some people to change the way they speak. But we should respect the reality here in an encyclopedia. Since UW-Madison is the official name of the Madison campus. It is better to building UW-Madison page there. Redirecting University of Wisconsin to University of Wisconsin system can only help to change the wrong way some people speak. It does no harm but benefits people.Miaers 22:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Also the Milwaukee, Green Bay and Parkside campuses were Unviersity of Wisconsin before the UW system came to existence. They deserve to show up at the Unviersity of Wisconsin page. Miaers 22:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why they "deserve" this. As far as I can tell, no one has ever considered these the "University of Wisconsin" without their geographic modifier at the end of it. Also, whether you like it or not, the Texas example has merit. There are several doctoral-granting universities within that system--more than in the UW system--that can make the same claim (UTEP, UT-Arlington, UT-Dallas, and, soon, UTSA). In any case, it appears that UW-Milwaukee might be changing their name, anyhow, which would leave UW-Madison as the only doctoral-granting university left with the UW name intact. Also, I'm not sure that the UMich schools would really like the inferior position that you're giving them--it seems to be fine to argue one way, concerning the UW system, but not the other, concerning the UMich and Texas systems (which you didn't even touch). I guess, Miaers, while I apprecaite your opinion, yours isn't the only one here, nor are you the sagest one of us that gets to impose your will "within 24 hours" or whatever arbitrary timeline you want to put out there. University of Wisconsin in the classical, and well-known name for the campus--there are details, and others have argued them here, and you don't just get to ignore those because it doesn't suit the vision of the world you want us to all live in. In any case, I oppose the move, but will abide by a clear consensus of argument, if the move is to be made. Madmaxmarchhare 01:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

My last point is going to be this, and then I'll shut up: If we want to see Wikipedia given an air of legitimacy, I think one of the things we need to do is use official names, not "common usage" names, the same as any serious print encyclopedia. And in this case, the official name is "University of Wisconsin - Madison". -JakeApple 04:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In that case, why shouldn't it be University of Wisconsin–Madison? It's an n-dash in there, but everyone is trying to get it to re-direct to the hyphen? I think Wikipedia would have plenty of legitimacy, regardless, actually.. Madmaxmarchhare 04:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin is just like State University of New York. It can refer to any of the universities in the system. The way how University of Texas is presented is definitely wrong. I'm not affiliated with that system. Otherwise, I will propose it to be changed. 14:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

One more time, Milwaukee campus is definitely University of Wisconsin. If you look at the seal of UW-Milwaukee. , you can see 1849 the year University of Wisconsin was established. Miaers 15:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why Miaers is suddenly the end-all/be-all regarding the name of the page. Can we open up a straw-poll somewhere to get some more feedback instead of the just the four to five people who would like to get it straightened out?  I don't know enough about procedure here, but it seems like we need more than just one person vs. one person to make the final decisions here.  Cheers, PaddyM 18:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess that is a ridiculous suggestion. No matter what people think. UW-Madision should build their page under their official name. Miaers 18:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move
So, how do we resolve this?

Let me see whether I have my facts straight:


 * University of Wisconsin is ambiguous; It's a nickname for:
 * The main Madison campus
 * The institution that occupies the Madison campus
 * The greater campus occupied by the University of Wisconsin–Madison
 * The entire University of Wisconsin System
 * Depending on context, it might mean any of the above.
 * The official name for the institution that occupies the Madison campus is The University of Wisconsin–Madison.

Let me add some observations:
 * There are significant histories to all of:
 * University of Wisconsin
 * University of Wisconsin–Madison
 * University of Wisconsin System
 * Deleting any of these articles will just complicate matters, and require undeletion of some edits for GFDL compliance purposes.
 * There have been so many cut-and-paste moves already that one more won't hurt a lot, just so long as the three article histories are retained.


 * I was wrong about University of Wisconsin–Madison. Its history is not significant, so we could easily move the appropriate article to this name. Andrewa 20:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I think we need to end up with:


 * University of Wisconsin–Madison describing the institution by that name.
 * University of Wisconsin System as is, describing the institution by that name.
 * University of Wisconsin could be a redirect to either of those articles, in which case there should be a notice at the very top of whichever article it points to, pointing to the other, or (probably better but I don't care a lot) it could be a disambiguation page. There is lots of room for debate about what would be on the disambig page, but again I don't personally care a lot just so long as both University of Wisconsin–Madison and University of Wisconsin System are on the list.

Comments so far? Andrewa 05:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with your first two suggestions. You see in the University of Wisconsin System article, University of Wisconsin–Madison is directed to University of Wisconsin. This is very confusing to the readers. UW-Madison should build their pager under its official name for sure.


 * As for the redirecting, I will support rediecting University of Wisconsin to University of Wisconsin System. Miaers 14:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If the UW-Madison page goes under its full name, I would assume the University of Wisconsin redirects there. The University of Wisconsin System should be stored under that page since it isn't, in itself, the University of Wisconsin, either. Madmaxmarchhare 15:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. We should use the unambiguous and official names as the article titles, where the common local name is both unofficial, and ambiguous to the wider world. There may be cases which are more complex, but this one seems straightforward to me. Andrewa 20:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree on using the unambiguous and official names as the article titles. But if you want to redirect University of Wisconsin, it should be redirected to University of Wisconsin System. This is because UW-Madison is part of the system. If you direct University of Wisconsin to UW-Madison and see also the University of Wisconsin System, which also includes Madison, that will be repeatitative and redundant. Epanther 20:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So, would you be happy to make University of Wisconsin a disambiguation? That seems the best solution to me. Andrewa 05:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the University of Wisconsin System article is just a disambiguation page. What diference can it make? Epanther 15:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Then I think that perhaps, just as you appear confused below as to what Wikipedia policy means, you may be confused as to what disambiguation means. University of Wisconsin System is (and IMO should remain) an article about the institution by that name. It contains not just links to other articles but also information on the subject that may be obvious to you but which is very interesting to others of us.


 * University of Wisconsin appears to be an ambiguous term, so it's a good name for a disambiguation page. University of Wisconsin System is the official and unambiguous name of one of the institutions that can claim the name University of Wisconsin, so it's a good article name. Is that any clearer? Andrewa 19:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

My vote would be for this (cribbed from Andrewa's post above): -JakeApple 20:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * University of Wisconsin–Madison describing the institution by that name
 * University of Wisconsin System as is, describing the institution by that name
 * University of Wisconsin be a disambiguation page with at least University of Wisconsin–Madison and University of Wisconsin System are on the list

Proposed move - Resolution
From my talk page:

''Hi there, thanks for intervening in the University of Wisconsin discussion. It seems that the debate has come to an end. Could you please move the article to its unambiguous name University of Wisconsin-Madison? From the long discussion, I can see that creating a disambig page for University of Wisconsin is acceptable to most editors there. Thanks. Miaers 19:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)''

That's my feeling too. I'll wait one more day, but unless there is a further objection to this, I don't think there's any need to relist this on Requested moves. If anyone wants a relisting, we should do it and I will. But assuming no objections, the proposal is:


 * The article on University of Wisconsin–Madison goes there (currently at University of Wisconsin)
 * The redirect currently at University of Wisconsin-Madison is deleted to allow this (no significant history, but there's been one change so we still need my sysop authority to do it)
 * The resulting redirect at University of Wisconsin will then be changed to a disambig pointing to University of Wisconsin-Madison and University of Wisconsin System.

As I said, failing further objections, that's what will now happen. Any further discussion, we'll go through a relisting at Requested moves, which I think will give the same result after five days. But I'd prefer to move on! Andrewa 20:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Systematic treatment of US Universities
The majority in Wikipedia when dealing with public university system that has a second or more large research institution or has a large number of universities within the system is to build their system page under the ambiguous name and direct the University system to the page under the ambiguous name. That is the case for University of North Carolina System, State University of New York System, Indiana University System, University of Massachusetts System, University of Hawaiʻi, University of California System. So I'll suggest move University of Wisconsin System to University of Wisconsin page. Epanther 15:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If I understand you, you're saying that there's a strong precedent for having one of the two articles (I'm not quite clear which) under this ambiguous and unofficial title. My question is, do you really think this is the best way to go? I'm skeptical. If this has been the practice up until now, it should IMO change. Not overnight of course, nor without broader discussion. All we are deciding on this talk page is how we're going to name the Wisconsin articles.


 * Then we may well propose a guideline or policy. But that's further down the track. Andrewa 20:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see there is anything wrong with the above university systems. University of __ is ambiguous, build Unversity of __ system under the ambiguous name serves as an disambigation. That's Wikipedia's policy. Epanther 20:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If there is a Wikipedia policy covering this, then we should certainly follow it. Where is it documented? Andrewa 05:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * But, I think you may be mistaken about Wikipedia policy on this. See Naming conventions: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things... (my emphasis) and do not write or put an article on a page with an ambiguously named title as though that title had no other meanings. That's official policy, and seems clear enough to me. We should follow it unless there is a more specific policy that overides it. I can't see one, but there's a lot of official policy, so I may be mistaken.


 * The alternative is to propose a change or addition to policy, but personally I think it's also quite a reasonable policy in this case. Andrewa 13:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

On the policy page, there is also the policy for a disambiguation page for ambiguous terms.Epanther 15:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. So that's what University of Wisconsin should become. Andrewa 19:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

One way to do it may be the way the University of Nevada page is set up. (I have a lot to do with the University of Nevada, Reno page, but almost nothing, if anything, to do with the University of Nevada page. It is a disambig page that discusses why the main/oldest campus is often called the University of Nevada without the "Reno" modifier. Madmaxmarchhare 19:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There are several ways of doing it, I listed three above (two possible redirects, or a disambiguation) and I'm not strongly promoting any of them, because which we use only really matters to people promoting one of the institutions. From the point of view of making the information available, the rest of us don't care, so long as the appropriate links and notices are there. What does matter is that we have articles under the unambiguous names, and that someone seeking the information in these articles can find it easily.


 * But I agree that the University of Nevada page looks great. There's a minor difference between this situation and what seems to be the case in Wisconsin, in that it disambiguates two campuses, rather than one campus and a higher-level institution. But it's the general way to go IMO, particularly in cases where although there are only two articles to disambiguate, there's strong opposition to a simple redirect to either of them. Andrewa 20:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think redirecting University of Wisconsin to University of Wisconsin System is a better solution, because University of Wisconsin System article contains all the information (relevant history backgrounds are listed in the second paragraph) and UW-Madison is put on the top of the Universities listed. Miaers 20:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a perfectly acceptable solution IMO. When there are only two articles to disambiguate, a disambiguation page isn't really necessary. If we were to do this, we'd have a notice at the very top of the University of Wisconsin System article saying something like University of Wisconsin redirects here. For the institution formerly known as the University of Wisconsin, see University of Wisconsin-Madison.


 * But, as an outsider, it seems to me that if I were a graduate of UW-Madison, I might find that mildly offensive. In the case of University of Nevada, there are presumably graduates, and descendents of graduates, who graduated from the University of Nevada when that was its official name. Is it the same for the University of Wisconsin? The current article doesn't actually say. But if so, it could be argued that, as University of Wisconsin has only ever been an official name of one of the two institutions, that's the article where the redirect should point. In this case we'd have a notice, this time right at the top of the University of Wisconsin-Madison article, saying something like University of Wisconsin redirects here. For the institution now informally known as the University of Wisconsin, see University of Wisconsin System.


 * As there are probably strong views both ways, a disambiguation page might be a good compromise. Otherwise, we risk edit wars, which waste time, and lead to disruptive edits to the articles and repeated listings on Requested moves... as we have seen.


 * But I'm happy with any of these three solutions. They all provide good navigation, so that people can find the information they want. If we can reach a consensus on which it is to be, that's great. If not, we still can and should decide what the article names should be. That seems relatively straighforward. Andrewa 03:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think University of Illinois and University of Hawaiʻi are good examples to follow. Miaers 14:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Or, you could look at the University of Michigan for a good example of how to showcase the flagship university in the system. Why not place a disambig statement at the top of the page - "This article is about the University of Wisconsin-Madison, for information relating to the University of Wisconsin system as a whole, please see...."  Cheers, PaddyM 16:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a non-negotiable IMO if the article name is to stay as it is. But I still think that the article should move to the unambiguous name.


 * To showcase the flagship university is possibly promotion. I'd be wary of that line of thought. We all know how much Americans love their colleges and universities. (We often wonder why (-> but that's another story.) Wikipedia is not the place to exercise these rivalries.


 * I'm probably not going to contribute terribly much more to this debate, but I invite those who have first-hand knowledge of the US university system to think very hard about what is going on here. Wikipedia is a US invention, and a credit to your culture. But this particular debate does US culture no credit at all. It appears to some of us outside of the US system that some of the participants are attempting to use Wikipedia to promote their own campuses, in contempt of the whole idea of NPOV. I'm sorry if that's a bit in-your-face, and it may not be entirely accurate, but that's the impression it gives. And the rest of the world is watching this, in real time, and will have it as an archived debate, available on the WWW indefinitely. Read it. Is it really what you want to showcase to the world?


 * The use of unambiguous article names is not a complex issue. I think you should sort it out, and move on.


 * The question of what then happens at the ambiguous names is unimportant, just so long as it's easy to navigate to the articles. A good disambig will provide the article in one mouse click, a redirect with a good notice on the target article in one click at most and often none. Again, it's not a complex issue. Andrewa 20:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That will be repeatitative and redundant, because University of Wisconsin System includes UW-Madison. What's point to see UW-Madison one more time for the readers? Epanther 16:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Some repetition and redundancy is acceptable, and even good, if it helps us to navigate to the information we want.


 * The point is, for many of us the structure of the system is important and new information. Not all of us know what you do. The goal is that all of us will be able to easily learn about the system. Unambiguous titles are a great help with this, which is why they are Wikipedia policy. Andrewa 20:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you go ahead and change relevant articles to unambigous pages? I support redirecting University of Wisconsin to University of Wisconsin System. If it is offensive to UW-Madison people, I'm also ok with a disambig papge for a compromise. Miaers 18:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)