Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-12-09 University of Missouri

Who are the involved parties?
User:Grey Wanderer, User:Alatari, and User:Lazytiger

What's going on?
Dispute about where to locate the information at University of Missouri. At the University of Missouri namespace or at the University of Missouri–Columbia namespace.

What would you like to change about that?
Currently arguments have only become more frantic and agitated. Need an uninvolved party to lay down some guidelines and help interpret wikipolicy.

Mediator notes
Hi. I'm your mediator. I've come to mediate your case. I'll be looking at the case and will tell you when I'm done. Auroranorth (!) 13:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
I believe we should stick with the Wikipedia policy of Naming conventions (schools) since determining common usage will need some outside original research. Alatari (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We both agree about sticking to WP policy, I believe the policy dictates that the page should remain located where it is. Several users have provided sources that demonstrate that the term "University of Missouri" refers only to the Columbia campus.  You have provided no sources except for stating that "I talked to a librarian" of "students say."  You've also stated that the Bord of Curators of the University have a POV, of course they do, but theirs has significantly more weight than yours.  I've tried to take your comments in stride, but I have to agree with Lazytiger, and say that most of your arguments don't make a great deal of sense.  I hope this mediation will be productive and solve our problems, but if not, I'm willing to attempt formal mediation.Grey Wanderer | Talk 07:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've cited sources which you have ignored including the Curators official usages. Other editors have clearly cited uses that attribute the term to other campuses and you continue to push the view that it 'never' gets used for the other campuses. It only takes one user referring to the UMSL campus as the University of Missouri to refute that statement. The curators do not run Wikipedia and anyone officially representing them is in violation of WP:COI and can not edit the page.  Alatari (talk) 08:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Alatari, I wonder if you could summarize your argument for us, since the discussion on the article talk page has been all over the map. Are you claiming simply that the POV of campuses other than Columbia must be represented? Is your argument based solely on the (proposed) Wikipedia policy you cite (which to me seems ambiguous at best)? Do you claim that common usage doesn't matter? Something else? Adam (talk) 07:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd also point out that the guidelines you cite appear to have been written with geographically distinct, completely unrelated, identically-named schools in mind, e.g. Forest School (Winnersh), Forest School (Horsham), and Forest School (Walthamstow). They do not appear to have been targeted at multi-campus university systems, whose individual campuses fall under the same administrative umbrella and have distinct names from each other. Adam (talk) 07:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC


 * Since the actual diplomas state University of Missouri no matter what campus it is issued from, since even the Curators call the other schools University of Missouri on their own website, since the official name of the school is still University of Missouri-Columbia, since news media refers to other campuses as the University of Missouri, since students and faculty at non-Columbia campuses refer to their schools as University of Missouri while speaking of them, since the UMSL, UMR and UMKC campuses are still University of Missouri schools, the University of Missouri article should continue to be a disambiguation page as it was. If UMSL and UMKC are ejected from the University of Missouri system then this would all be a mute point. Alatari (talk) 08:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I was at an UMSL graduation yesterday, the diplomas state University of Missouri St. Louis, quite clearly and the dipomas have the University of Missouri system seal on them. I'm a little frusturated, no matter how many times I tell you that I don't work for the University you keep accusing me of COI. I have no more COI than yourself. The Curators website has not been changed yet to match the new guidelines. The Curator never call UMSL, Rolla, or UMKC just "University of Missouri" there is always a qualifier. The curator often call MU just that. For a very long time it was the curators who insisted calling the University of Missouri the "University of Missouri-Columbia," due to common usage and a de facto attitude about the name the curators finally bowed to the pressure and officaly recognized the usage. Even the president of the board of curators said that they were just recognizing reality. Altari you keep claiming their are other editors that support you, Who?. And by the way the University of Missouri page was never a disambiguation page, it was a redirect to University of Missouri-Columbia. I second Adam and would like a summary of your argumetn as I'm a little unsure what your arguing.Grey Wanderer | Talk 08:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You were at a graduation? Why?  If you have a diploma then scan it in and prove your point.  I will get the librarian at UMSL to scan in some diplomas if she is willing.    The University of Missouri article redirected to the University of Missouri System page by other editors.  Alatari (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, My brother-in-law was getting his PhD in Criminology. To be exact the casing said University of Missouri St Louis, the diploma stated that it was awarded by the University of Missouri curators, thoses were the only two uses of University of Missouri at all.  The University of Missouri page hasn't redirect to the system page in over a year. This was changed because of common usage per WP:Naming Conventions.


 * Here is a scan of a UMKC diploma. All of the diplomas for all system schools are the same, with of course the name, date, and city changed.  These diplomas have been in this form since MUs founding.  Diplomas are granted from the system, not the campus, therefore the only reference to the campus is the name of the campus on the front of the binder they are awarded in.  This, of course, has no effect on common usage or conversation.Grey Wanderer | Talk 09:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So in common usage when someone refers to the University of Missouri where they graduated they are talking about the System not the school in Columbia. You are making my case very well. Alatari (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ummm....thats not what I said.Grey Wanderer | Talk 09:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I hate to pick nits here, but the diploma pictured dates to 1940, more than twenty years before UKC joined the system as UMKC, and was apparently given "in substitution for the degree...conferred by the University of Kansas City". I wonder if this was some sort of special joint degree between the former UKC and MU? Do UMKC diplomas still bear this notation? Adam (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, so it is, that is how the diploma's still look, I saw one yesterday.Grey Wanderer | Talk 19:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My diploma from Mizzou also looks similar, except of course it says "Done at the University, in the City of Columbia," and doesn't say anything about substituting a degree from the University of Kansas City. I don't think the diploma says it was issued in 1940; it's substituting the original University of Kansas City degree that was given in 1940. The date of issue of the scanned diploma is not clear. Interesting, but nonetheless irrelevant to our discussion here.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 20:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's irrelevant; my nitpicking has more to do with idle curiosity than with any belief that it makes a difference to the debate. Adam (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a very simple concept in my mind relating to usage but I'll step you through it. I like hundreds of thousands of other graduates received a diploma which states Univerity of Missouri on it.  My resume states I graduated from the University of Missouri and when I'm asked about where I attended school I say the University of Misouri just like thousands of other graduates do with their resume's and interview processes.  But I went to the Rolla campus and so did so many others attend the non-Columbia campuses yet they received diplomas stating University of Missouri.  Comprende?  Usage in everyday life. Alatari (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're conflating two different things here. What you and other graduates of campuses other than Columbia say on their resumes, in interviews, etc. should certainly inform our definition of common usage; what the diploma says should not (IMO). Adam (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You claim on Talk:University of Missouri that other campuses POVs must be represented. You've yet to prove that other campuses have those POVs, all I see is the POV, your trying to push. I think I might understand something better now. Are you upset, like some UMSL and UMKC faculty, because you think that the those campuses might lose prestige if they are viewed as branch campuses. Many faculty at UMSL and UMKC had opposition to the curators action because they did not want to be mistaken so, however, no one at those campuses every tried to deny that "University of Missouri" alone meant either the system or the Columbia campus.Grey Wanderer | Talk 09:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not my POV it's also a POV I see clearly represented on the Curators own web site and in the news media: Here's Bill O'Rielly referring to a University of MIssouri law school professor at UMKC not UMC. Alatari (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've asked you several questions above, can you address them?Grey Wanderer | Talk 09:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have answered your questions. You make a very good point about the POV of the faculty still viewing the StL and KC branches as University of Missouri.  You seem to be supporting my argument those faculty views are representative in this dispute.  The University of Texas way of handling the name space is very appropriate and the way this article was handled until you heavy-handedly moved the page without reaching consensus. Alatari (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Another point: University of Missouri doesn't disambig Lincoln University of Missouri properly. Which is another small University of Missouri est. 1866. Alatari (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm really think you don't have any idea of what common usage is, I don't know how to respond to this...Do you live in Missouri, and do you know much about our educational institutions? The main question I wanted answered is:  Which, if any, editors are supporting you?Grey Wanderer | Talk 09:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * LU is definitely not part of the UM system, and would never be referred to as the University of Missouri. In fact, I think many LU people would bristle at the suggestion. ;) Adam (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what Alatari's issue is with the Lincoln University link; it's irrelevant to our discussion here. In the context of the MU article, the fact that we're talking about the Lincoln University located in the state of Missouri is a given, so I used plain "Lincoln University" in the text and piped the link to Lincoln University of Missouri, which was the article's namespace at that point in time. It apparently has since been changed to Lincoln University (Missouri), but I sill fail to see why this is at all relevant here.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 20:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Right -- LU is totally unrelated to the UM system, would never be referred to as "University of Missouri", and is therefore irrelevant. Not all Universities in Missouri are Universities of Missouri ;) Adam (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not that it matters at this point, but I was confused and also forgetful. I moved Lincoln University (Missouri) to Lincoln University of Missouri (on 18 April 2007) when I saw how prominently the university displayed its name as such. But it seems I did not update the link in the MU article. So I'm stupid for forgetting I did that. But second, I'm now understanding that Alatari might have been confused, thinking that "Lincoln University of Missouri" is related to the UM System. It isn't, as Adam already pointed out. "of Missouri" is simply a disambiguation tag, much like Indiana University of Pennsylvania, or Washington University in St. Louis. Glad I could clear up this point that no one cares about. :) —Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 18:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. On their website they have "LINCOLN" in one typeface and "University of Missouri" in another typeface on a separate line. This state just doesn't try very hard to keep its universities straight, it seems. ;)  Adam (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Nahh, I wasn't being that generous. Mizzou stays at University of Missouri, but we create University of Missouri (disambiguation) page. This is the sceme in place on Missouri. When people say "Missouri" the usually mean the state so thats where the article is located, but, they sometimes mean the river, or band, so there is a disambig page.Grey Wanderer | Talk 19:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm getting tired of this discussion. I don't feel nearly as strong about either viewpoint as you two do, Grey Wanderer and Alatari. And thus far, we have really gotten nowhere. Speaking of nowhere, where is our supposed mediator? Should we request a new one? Anyway, back my point. We really are on different wavelengths here; that's just how written communication works compared to verbal. If we were in a room speaking together, we might actually understand each other's points, even if we still didn't agree. I've flip-flopped on this issue all along (dating back over a year), and I'll happily flip again. I'm not a big supporter of Mizzou's semantic whining about Columbia being in its name. Common usage is often different than official, and it's not a problem. UMKC, UMR, and UMSL might, in common usage, be referred to as "University of Missouri" and no one ever had a fundamental problem with that. But when push came to shove, as MU instigated, the other campuses and the System effectively said, "Fine. Take it, you whiny bitches." So now MU has quasi-official claim to it, where none existed before (since 1963, at least). Of course this has all been a rather recent development (less than 3 weeks, people!), and common usage doesn't change quickly, if ever. Now, I recognize that all four campuses, collectively and individually, can (and sometimes are) correctly referred to as the "University of Missouri". However, I think it is also a true statement that the utterance of "University of Missouri" from any and all sources—local, national, or international; sports or academics; TV, newspapers, or journals; students, faculty, alumni, or public at large; in the classroom or on the street—is most often referring to MU. That does not mean that other uses are incorrect, nor should it cause such an uproar about usage. But it does suggest what people are probably looking for when they come to Wikipedia and type in "University of Missouri", and as far as this argument goes, that's all that matters. Grey Wanderer has done quite a bit of work looking at the hundreds of Wikipedia articles that have a link to University of Missouri and he found that virtually all of them were referring to Mizzou. That's really all the proof of common usage that we need for this argument. Wikipedia is not the place to hash out grievances about usage at large; it should simply be a reflection of common usage—not even at large, but specifically within the sphere of Wikipedia. Certainly, facts about usage are welcome within the articles themselves, but talk behind the scenes like this is not. So... after all that, here is my latest and greatest suggestion as a compromise: Move the MU article back to University of Missouri–Columbia, and make University of Missouri a redirect to the MU article. There will continue to be a Wiki note at the top stating that University of Missouri redirects here, and offers a link to the system article. This gives MU enormous weight to the namespace "University of Missouri" but doesn't exactly give it ownership. Much like reality, in my opinion.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 16:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is the best compromise, and well-reasoned, and I would echo your frustration. ;) Adam (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is how the article was named originally. Usage on Wikipedia is not evidence for common usage in the public. Wikipedia reflects usage outside itself and that argument borders on WP:WAX.  Alatari (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * you both know my opinion, but, if that is the only consensus that we can come to, I'll agree. However, this topic my be revisited should, campus signage change, or a good third party study get done (whats the likelyhood of that?).  I would also stipulate that in accordence with MUs own naming conventions that within WP the name University of Missouri may be used, though should link to University of Missouri-Columbia.Grey Wanderer | Talk 19:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me -- redirect University of Missouri to University of Missouri-Columbia with a DAB header-thingy, and if at some point in the (perhaps distant) future this starts to look silly due to shifting usage/opinions, then future editors can change it. I think this is the best way to both reflect common usage and maintain NPOV. Adam (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just thought of another compromise: Say we create a University of Missouri disambiguation page, but leave the MU article where it currenly is. It would be much like the relationship between Missouri and Missouri (disambiguation). That way we would be recognizing that all the campuses are associated with that name, but be able to leave MU at the name it is most commonly called University of Missouri (well ahead of University of Missouri-Columbia (see MU website stats). This would also keep down the number of redirects since University of Missouri is the most wikilinked.Grey Wanderer | Talk 19:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean University of Missouri would redirect to University of Missouri-Columbia, which above the main article content would contain a link to University of Missouri (disambiguation), which would explain the naming issue and give links to the system and campus pages? Adam (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, if usage changes, official or otherwise, then the situation should be reexamined. The three of us are more or less in agreement about the redirect, but Alatari has not yet chimed in, nor have we heard anything from a mediator. (Grey Wanderer, might you see about getting another 3rd party Wikipedian? Although I don't think it's necessary unless Alatari still wants to argue.) I am not a big fan of "Whatever (disambiguation)" pages. I don't think that would solve anything; we're all fighting for the good real estate. :) I agree that "University of Missouri" may be used at will in the body of the MU article or in other articles referring to MU. That's been common long before this argument ever broke out, and we couldn't change that if we wanted to. I don't think it matters much if the link is piped to "University of Missouri–Columbia" if the redirect is there, and certainly the unwashed masses won't have the diligence to use "–Columbia" in the text, let alone a piped link. Really, that is central to our argument here (and is in our favor), as far as what name/link other Wikipedians are likely to use in other articles.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 19:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So UM-Columbia content stays at University of Missouri, and University of Missouri links to University of Missouri (disambiguation)? The only thing I don't understand is what links to the disambig page. Adam (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's another idea: perhaps we could simply change the dablink at the top of the existing University of Missouri page to read as follows:

(Substituting "University of Missouri-Rolla" where appropriate until 1/1/08.) It's lengthy, but its very length would call attention to (and clarify) the potential ambiguity right away, and it implies no POV on the "correct" usage of the term. Adam (talk) 06:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The most recent Dablink statement I would support but I wish to see the namespace handled like the University of Texas is handled with University of Missouri redirecting to University of Missouri-Columbia or Mizzou and the above Dablink with maybe a small section in History regarding the name change and it's controversial nature. And a University of Missouri (disambiguation) page with a quick list of all schools with the University of Missouri in their name.
 * No argument against the redirect from me. I'm not sure that the lengthy dablink and the disambig page are both necessary, but it hardly seems like a big deal -- it's just that, similar to Grey Wanderer's proposal, I'm not sure I understand what would link to the disambig page when the dablink seems to say it all. Others' thoughts? Adam (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's some evidence for the other POV's from about 30 minutes of searching, Grey Wanderer said there were KC and SL professors (who are considered scholars for Wikipedia uses) that were in disagreement with the changes.  This is why I suggest the POV isn't neutral for Wikipedia is not an extension of the Curators' public relations department.
 * "But constituents from the St. Louis and Kansas City campuses have balked at the plan, saying the 'University of Missouri' is a name shared by all of the campuses. They also worried about the appearance of seeming like satellite campuses."
 * Timothy Green concerns over the distraction
 * "The University of Missouri is the state's land-grant, research and doctoral-granting public higher education system, with campuses at Columbia, Kansas City, Rolla and St. Louis."
 * "“It doesn’t really affect me,” Johnson said. “We will always be Mizzou.”"
 * "'In addition, the UM System officials may have occasion from time to time to refer to the entire university as the University of Missouri.'" Alatari (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll start the University of Missouri (disambiguation) page after some r/l matters. Alatari (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to start a University of Missouri (disambiguation) page, I of course can't stop you, but I don't see what that page would do that couldn't be readily handled by the University of Missouri System page. But I'm at least glad we're coming to some sort of agreement. Thanks.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 16:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Alatari's right that there was opposition to the name change. UMSL and UMKC professor were opposed because they didn't want it to appear that those campuses were branch campsues as opposed to insitution in their own right.  I have seen no evidence that UMSL and UMKC ever claimed that "University of Missouri" alone ever applied to anything but Mizzou or the system.  The problem is that we need to go with public usage not any schools POV.  Nobody from any school has disagreed that "University of Missouri" usually means Columbia, just if Columbia should be allowed to change its name offically.  Are we in agreement then that the University of Missouri namespace should either: (1) rediret to University of Missouri-Columbia (2) be the location of the Mizzou page or (3) be the location of the Mizzou page with a link to a University of Missouri disambig page at the top.  I am personally in support of number three, I think it makes it clear that though "University of Missouri" most comonly applies to MU, it might also be applied to the system.Grey Wanderer | Talk 18:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus?
I hope I'm not being overoptimistic here, but I think that we may be getting close to a consensus and I want to try and make a concrete proposal to try and close the deal.


 * 1) Redirect University of Missouri to University of Missouri–Columbia.
 * 2) Add the following dablink to University of Missouri–Columbia:
 * 3) Address the name change, and the opposition to it, in two or three short sentences at the bottom of the "History" section in University of Missouri–Columbia.

This differs from (my understanding of) Alatari's most recent proposal in two ways: (1) there is no disambiguation page, and (2) the dablink has been reworded slightly (from my original wording, which I believe Alatari has said he would support), to reflect the fact that University of Missouri would be a redirect rather than contain University of Missouri–Columbia content.

I have omitted the dab page proposed by Alatari from the above not because I am categorically opposed to it, but simply because I don't understand what would link to it (it seems that it would be orphaned), and I agree with Lazytiger that the University of Missouri System page can serve essentially the same function.

I believe the merits of this proposal are as follows:


 * The wording of the dablink statement does not imply that using "University of Missouri" to refer to the system is "incorrect" or "mistaken".
 * The length of the dablink statement, placed at the very top of the article, calls immediate attention to the ambiguity.
 * It (hopefully!) balances the various points of view.

If I'm understanding everyone correctly -- and I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouth! -- Lazytiger would probably not object to this, while Grey Wanderer would rather keep UM-Columbia content at University of Missouri, and both Grey and Alatari would like to have a dab page (rather than a simple dablink). If that's all we have left to disagree about, maybe we can compromise, or at least try to stay focused on those two points as we continue debating the issue.

Thoughts? Adam (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm....I don't like the unwieldiness of the dablink wording, but might have to accept it. I also think Lazytiger's right that the system page accomplishes just about the same thing as a dab would.  I'm a little unwilling to call attention ot the ambiguity on the top of the MU page, just because it clutters things up, and I don't think most people care, (except for geeks like us). I think there are two seperate arguments here: (1)  Where to located the Mizzou material and (2)  How to provide for the fact that University of Missouri can mean multiple things.  To address issue (1) WP:Naming Conventions would have us place the Mizzou article at University of Missouri as that is the most well known and used name for that institution. To address issue (2) it would seem the clearest way to demonstrate ambiguity would be the creation of a disambig page.  I only think a disambig page might serve us better than linking to the system page because it would be located at a University of Missouri not University of Missouri System.  So it would be clearly about the term "University of Missouri."Grey Wanderer | Talk 19:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the wording of the DABlink is a little much; I think we can refine it into something that gives the same information in a more compact form. While I see Grey's point about the disambig being in the plain namespace rather than under System, I don't see that as a big enough issue to warrant the separate disambig page. I think University of Missouri redirecting to University of Missouri–Columbia recognizes that's the most common meaning, but doesn't take sole ownership. Then, the DABlink at the top can (briefly, I hope) explain the multiple acceptable and/or common meanings of the term. It could be as simple as the University of Texas article, which Alatari seems to think is a good example:


 * "University of Missouri" redirects here. For other system schools, see University of Missouri System.


 * I think all Alatari really wants is for the MU article to be moved back to the University of Missouri–Columbia namespace; I don't think we're going to run into any big problems with the redirect or the wording of the DABlink. I can see Grey's point that common usage could dictate that the MU article be in the University of Missouri namespace, but that's not a given and we're obviously trying to reach a compromise here.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 19:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My reasoning behind the lengthy dablink -- which I agree is almost laughably verbose -- is that it falls in between a full dab page (requiring an extra click for the [presumably large] majority of readers who were actually looking for UM-Columbia), and a very short dablink which might fail to catch the reader's attention. ("Other system schools" seems a bit terse.)


 * I do think that some people other than "us geeks" (referring to Grey Wanderer's comment) may care about the ambiguity, whether they initially realize it or not. As an example, someone who doesn't already know about the structure of and naming conventions of the UM System might see a reference to an "University of Missouri-St. Louis" faculty member in the media, search Wikipedia for more information, and land on University of Missouri. I think that a lengthier (and more explanatory) dablink would cause such a reader to pause for a second and make sure he's in the right place, while the UT-Austin style one is more likely to go unnoticed, meaning that such a reader would be led astray (at least temporarily). On the other hand, a reader who knows where she's going will probably take one glance at the dablink, skip right over it, and move on to the body of the article.


 * Maybe something in between, explanatory and contextualizing but not quite as unwieldy, would work better:


 * But at any rate, if everyone else is satisfied with a UT-style dablink I'm certainly not gonna object at this point! Adam (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If we have to make an even shorter sentence here a dab page would be needed but this particular dablink is very nice. List of colleges and universities in Missouri covers any dab page much better than any I was going to create.  The Category:Universities and colleges in Missouri is pretty clear too.  Alatari (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I give my full support to the UT-style dablink (I even think that was what was on the page before). I think at some point down the road that the page move will become absolutely necessary. MU is going to do all it can to erase University of Missouri-Columbia from public and formal usage. Should that become necessary, I would make sure to notify everyone who has participated in discussion here and propose the move for administrative review. However I don't see any reason to bring it up again unless campus signage is changed and if it becomes relatively obscure on the website. If Altari agrees, I will perform a reverse merger of my original edit today. I might also archive this conversation with the rest of the name debate on what will be Talk:University of Missouri–Columbia/Archive2.Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's funny (not "ha, ha" funny, but...) that we will end up in exactly the same place we started if we go back to the MU article being at University of Missouri–Columbia with University of Missouri redirecting to it, and the DAB reading ""University of Missouri" redirects here. For other system schools, see University of Missouri System." As far as the MU article inevitably moving to the University of Missouri namespace again, I'm not sure how inevitable that actually is. I know the upper echelons of MU's administration would like it to happen ASAP, but that doesn't mean it ever will. Only time will tell. I find it interesting that the UM System has not had any news releases on their website since the name "restoration" was announced.  The length of time that has passed is longer than usual between their news releases, and that obviously was a notable piece of news.  I'm wondering if some sort of website redesign is brewing, in light of the imminent Missouri S&T changeover and MU taking marketing possession of "University of Missouri".—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 02:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * AGREED: I'll wait for the changes before proposing any language on the history section for the name change.  If they had changed the official name to University of Missouri completely forsaking the -Columbia in all ways legal and contractual and then this wouldn't have been such an issue.  Is this a first step in making KC and StL official branches?  You all have convinced me that my original thoughts that University of Missouri article should contain the University of Missouri System text were off track. Alatari (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think UMKC or UMSL are in any danger of becoming branch campuses as they are separately-accredited institutions. However, I wouldn't be surprised if they want to change their names in the future, even if they remain in the system. UMKC could go back to being the University of Kanasas City; UMSL could be University of St. Louis, though I don't think SLU would be too happy about that. Regardless, as long as "–Columbia" is holding on by a thread I don't think that is likely or necessary.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 16:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speak of the devil—as soon as I say that the UM System hasn't had a news release, they have one. The new UM System president will be announced tomorrow, and it's going to be just-ousted Sprint CEO Gary Forsee.  Interesting.  No comment on that, but I have been wondering about some other aspects of this name restoration that the UM System has left oh-so-vague. E.g., you often see "© Curators of the University of Missouri".  Should that now read "© Curators of the University of Missouri System"?  How about the research parks?  Health care system?  Extension programs?  It seems there will continue to be a very tangled web of where the System ends and MU begins, or vice versa. On a more Wiki-centric note, should templates referring to MU include "–Columbia"?  How about articles like AAU or Big 12 Conference? We've got many more cans of worms to wrangle.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 02:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I've noticed that in all the news articles today about Forsee, they have diligently referred to him being named president of the UM System, not just the University of Missouri. Equally diligently, they note that he received his degree in 1972 from the University of Missouri-Rolla (they of course used a hyphen instead of an en dash... can't have it all. :)  I don't know if they naturally made these distinctions or if the UM System was heavy-handed.  Seems unlikely that the UM System said much of anything, considering they aren't officially announcing the presidency until tomorrow. Everyone was seemingly copying their facts from the AP anyway, so I guess it only takes one source to be diligently correct and everyone to follow. I also just checked through a bunch of MU schools/colleges/department websites to see if "–Columbia" is disappearing.  I haven't been keeping track, but my general impression is that maybe a few schools/colleges have changed since I last checked, but several still use the old name and there is a lot of inertia on the low-rent department websites. Then again, it has only been 3 weeks. Time will tell.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 04:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to understand better the timing of the Rolla name change and Columbia change from the back-room politics view. Rolla has threatened to pull out of the system befores; there were rumors of it in the 1980's while I was an undergrad.  Alatari (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I just added a bunch of text about the name controversy on the University of Missouri System page. Check it out and let me know what you think. I'm not done with it yet, but I'm out of time until after Christmas. Thanks.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 04:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It will need some heavy sourcing. some articles or transcripts of the decision making meetings would be helpful. The wording needs to be a bit more neutral uninvolved viewpoint although in it's current form it's an interesting read. So the Rolla decision was first?  See you in a few days. Alatari (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it definitely will need a lot of sources, though they might be difficult to find. I figured it was best to try to just flesh something out first and then track down the attributions afterward. Rolla was indeed first as far as actual decisions, but I'm sure unrealized name changes have been proposed in the past. That's more content that can be added if anyone is knowledgeable.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 20:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I've proposed the move, should be done in anytime now.Grey Wanderer | Talk


 * Move has been completed, I think thats it.Grey Wanderer | Talk 20:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)