Talk:University of Wisconsin System/Archive 1

Untitled
The UW-M links only link to the redirect page. (Problem resolved)

University of Wisconsin
I have reverted Miaers' wikilink b/c it does not actually go to where he thinks it goes. The University of Wisconsin is redirected to UW-Madison, which makes linking the first instance in that sentence a mistake. As there is no DAB page, there is no reason to have University of Wisconsin wikilinked in that sentence. Please do not re-revert it as it only will serve to confuse. Cheers, PaddyM 22:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Miaers
This is a copy of the discussion I had with Miaers on my talk page:

Please stop moving pictures around in the article. They are placed on the top to avoid unnecessary blank spaces. Removing reference is vandalism. The dates you wikified are unnecessary. They are totally unrelated with the contents of the article. Miaers 21:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * All full dates should be wikied, the pictures running down the side in the article cause problems when viewing the page in Safari. The edit buttons for each section get pushed to the end of the article.  I tried to put each image at the correct point in the article.  Paul C/T+ 21:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not true. You should try to avoid unnecessary wikify according to MOS. Those photos are quite fine. Please don't move around again. Miaers 21:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is.
 * If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should almost always be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format.
 * As for the photos, again, when viewing the page in Safari the edit buttons get messed up. This is not "fine". Paul C/T+ 21:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read Only make links that are relevant to the context. Nobody believe your story. If it does not work, it doesn't work either way. Miaers 21:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * From that link:
 * Because of the date preference formatting MediaWiki software feature, "how" to link and "when" to link dates can not be treated independently one from the other. Unrelated to that software issue, there is no general consensus that the habit of linking separate years (that are date indications that only consist of a "year") should be abandoned, although most Wikipedians disfavour that habit currently. Details about when and how to link dates can be found in Manual of Style (dates and numbers).
 * Regarding the pictures, if they are separated within each section, the edit links work correctly. An even better way to deal with the problem would be to put all the photos in a gallery in their own section. I'll try and mockup an example of that quickly. Paul C/T+ 21:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No bother. It works fine on Macs here. I think it your own computer problem. The current arrangement is a gallary itself. Miaers 22:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I should warn you that if you revert the article one more time you will be in violation of the WP:3RR. The problem isn't limited to Safari on my end either, I see the same thing in Camino as well. At the very end of the article you will see [edit][edit][edit]...[edit] when the pictures go down the right side of the page. Paul C/T+ 22:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not removing references. You don't need the whole reference every time you use it, that is why the references have names, so you can just refer to the name. The actual citation only needs to be in the article once. If you look at the actual article you would see this. Paul C/T+ 22:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The 3RR is not appliable to problematic images. The previous reference has information about how to add references. It is much better than yours. Anyway, I'll have you reported for an incident. Miaers 22:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've copied this discussion to the talk page. Lets continue this discussion there.Paul C/T+ 22:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

''I should probably point out that Miaers reported me. (What did I do? I have no idea.) In response I posted his reverts to the 3RR noticeboard.'' Paul C/T+ 00:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Miaers was blocked for 2 weeks due to repeated violations of 3RR. Paul C/T+ 09:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I begin to realize why these people don't want to put UW-Madison's picture on the top. It is because they don't want it appear in the Former University of Wisconsin section. It doesn't matter. I put UW-Milwaukee there. :)Miaers 15:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This might be relevant here. I didn't post anyone's discussion here, so I just wanted to be sure that's clear. Also, I'm not sure why Psantora's lucky that Miaers didn't report me. Someone here have some ideas? I'm not sure:
 * Your revert on UW System talk page
 * This is to let you know that I'm disgusted by your posting of my discussion with Psantora onto the UW System talk page. The discussion happened on Psantora's talk page not on UW System. There is no need to make a duplicate. He also violated 3RR. He was lucky I didn't report you at that time.Miaers 12:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Madmaxmarchhare 18:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Mascot Picture
I'm not an expert (clearly), but I don't really see how the picture of the mascots qualifies for Fair Use, given that pictures of the mascots taken by individuals can be easily acquired. Anyone else have a more informed opinion? Cheers, PaddyM 18:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be much harder, however, to get a group shot of UW-Wherever mascots together like this one. They don't exactly hang out in bars or anything! -- Orange Mike 18:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Lede
I'm going to remove the sentence University of Wisconsin campuses are rich in American higher education traditions and boast of world-class education, research and public service. from the introduction. It doesn't contain any real information (what does it mean to be "rich in American higher education traditions"), but if someone can think of how to include similar information in an appropriate manner, I'd appreciate that. Gimme danger 18:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Endowment
The 300 million endowment that some editor want to put here is obviously wrong. The endowment of both UW-Madison and UW-Milwaukee is larger than this figure. It is totally ridiculous for the system to have a number smaller than those of its individual campuses. Since there is no direct source for the correct system endowment number. I've had this item removed. Another way is to put economic impact in the info box, which is backed by the about UW system website. But somehow it doesn't show up.

Also User: Akhilleus, stop replacing the UW system website with irrelevant things in the external link section and deleting the reference in the intro. Miaers 15:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with keeping the number out of the article until you can find a better source. But I think you're mistaken about how the system is organized. It looks like UW-Madison has its own endowment, administered by the UW-Madison Foundation, UW-Madison, UW-Eau Claire, etc. have their own endowments, and the System has its own endowment, separate from the individual campuses. Therefore it's not valid to add up the endowments of all the schools in the system and say that the total is the system's endowment. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If you don't know about the calculation of the system endowment, go to see the University of California case, whose endowment is the total of its all individual campuses foundations. Miaers 15:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wisconsin is not California. The figure for California's endowment comes from a report published by the University system that gives the combined total. If Wisconsin publishes a similar report that gives the total of all the individual foundations, we could give that figure. But I don't think they publish a report like that: unlike California, the UW System has an endowment of its own, separate from the individual campuses, which is approximately $300 million as of 2006. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, then you need to add the total of all the individual campuses as well as the 300 million. That's the figure that is supposed to be in this article, which lists all the campues. Miaers 16:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If the System says that its endowment is $300 million, it's incorrect to total up the endowments of the individual campuses and say that's the endowment of the System. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid the System says that its economic impact is 9 billion. Miaers 16:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, but that's irrelevant. Economic impact isn't the same as the endowment. See for the meaning of "economic impact". --Akhilleus (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Your arguement is a waste of time. The about UW System website obviously lists that even the amount of gifts and grants it received is $1.2 billion. Miaers 16:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, this argument is a waste of time, because you are apparently unwilling to recognize that the "economic impact" of the UW system is its annual contribution to the economy of Wisconsin. That's clearly explained in the pdf I just linked to, "The Economic Impact of the University of Wisconsin System." You might find reading it instructive. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Gifts and grants do not necessarily equate to endowment. Financial endowment says, "A financial endowment is a transfer of money or property donated to an institution, with the stipulation that it be invested, and the principal remain intact." Not all gifts and grants are invested. – Lordmontu  (talk) • (contribs) 20:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if the governing body of the UW system has its own endowment of 300 mil (which is probably untrue), this number still shouldn't be used because the infobox is about the whole system not about its governing body. Miaers 20:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Alumni-spirit-mascot-group.JPG
Image:Alumni-spirit-mascot-group.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I have proposed merging University of Wisconsin (1956-1971) into University of Wisconsin System because the University of Wisconsin organization from 1956-1971 is not a defunct university (as it is currently categorized), but was (in essence) a forerunner of the current UW System. I think it would be more straightforward and less confusing to cover it by expanding the "Former University of Wisconsin" section in this UW System article. --Orlady (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly support this merger for the reasons given. Madmaxmarchhare (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Although there are lawyerly reasons for the articles being the way they are (essentially, the old UW-Madison crowd kept power over the system during this period, to the considerable irritation of everyone else subsumed under them), I can support this move. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  17:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I support the merger for the reasons given. I was at University of Wisconsin-La Crosse at the time of the merger.Thanks-RFD (talk) 00:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good plan to me. Cheers, PaddyM (talk) 00:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's almost been three years, but it's finally done. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  13:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I also merged Wisconsin State Universities for the same reasons. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  13:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)