Jump to content

Talk:University of Wisconsin–Madison/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

Forgetting The Onion as Madison's finest Newspaper

Not sure why, but clearly there should be a mention of The Onion in the UW-Madison newspaper section. Clearly more sucessful than either the campus papers (IMO).

Greg

Greg, The Onion, while certainly popular on campus, is a nation (actually, world-)-wide satrical paper that UW has no particular claim to other than the fact that there's a local edition. Madmaxmarchhare 00:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, to postpend that... no claim to The Onion as a university, although, perhaps, it could be mentioned in the Miscellany/Trivia section that two UW students started it.. Madmaxmarchhare 00:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The Onion was started at UW-Madison. Later they moved to NYC. 165.189.91.148 20:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess we'll just a agree to disagree about this. I just find it odd that an article on my alma mater would employ revisionist history regarding ommitting the most successful newspaper to come out of UW Madison. Yes, it started there...and was local to UW Madison years and years before ever being national...or web-based. To leave it out of a 'Newspaper Section' is playing fast and loose with the facts (IMO). But, then again, this article also leaves out the Zucker Brothers (Airplane! Police Squad) being president of the student council back in the 70s(boombox parade, flamingos on bascom, statue of liberty head on lake mendota) so I don't expect it to include everything. I guess this type of trivia is only interesting to me...

Greg

Grateful Red

Hi. I've been putting together pages for each of the Big Ten's basketball student sections and was wondering if someone would be interested in expanding and maintaining that of the Grateful Red. Thanks!--BroadSt Bully 13:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is a seperate page for the Grateful Red, should there also be a page for the Crease Creatures (the UW Hockey student section)? Just a question to think about... Also, there should probably be something mentioned in the "Rivalries" section about the Men's Hockey rivalry with North Dakota.

The external links section could use some serious trimming, both in quantity and in the length of annotation describing each. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but I wouldn't know where to begin. It looks like anyone on campus who has wanted to promote their dept., etc., has been adding to the list. I did start by removing BadgerBookstore.com since it's a commercial link that has no official connection to the University. -JakeApple 04:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Wanted to add that maybe I'll take a crack at it in the next couple of days, but I make no promises. I was looking at the list, and an alternative to trimming might be to use subcategories; I can see several obvious ones right off the bat. -JakeApple 04:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that trimming is the correct approach, making the page split links into subcategories seems like it's unpolished. There is no reason that wikipedia should have links to individual departments or student organizations. Three that seem like they should go are: The Badger yearbook, TUSO, and the Forensics team. Dark567 00:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sterling Hall

Could someone go take a photo of Sterling Hall (preferably the part that was blown up in the 60s) for the Sterling Hall bombing page? We were using the one from the University, so it was not a free-use image. Thanks! --Habap 21:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Marching Band Article?

A new section or article should be created about the UW Marching Band. – Lordmontu (talk) • (contribs) 05:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's Make UW-Madison a Featured Article

I recently re-organized this article to follow a format similar to University of Michigan and Michigan State University, which are both featured articles. UW-Madison still needs a lot of work. The Big Ten Wikiproject is organizing this. Please join if interested.

  • First, we need to fix up the "Campus" and "Student Life" sections by making them distinct sections. Right now, they both cover the same topics. See the two Michigan articles for ideas. The "Unions" sub-section can fit in both categories, so we need to decide which one to add it to. Also, we should add more info to student life, maybe add a section on Greek life, student government, student activities, ect. Also, maybe the campus section could be broken into two sub-sections, one being lakeshore and the other Southeast or city.
  • Second, we need a lot more references. Both of the Michigan articles have over 80, while UW-Madison has 3.
now has 34 references! – Lordmontu (talk) • (contribs) 03:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Third, we need to add more pictures. Pics of the Unions and a library would be nice, along with some other campus photos, and a picture with the lake in the background.
  • Fourth, we need to clean up the external links.
  • Fifth, we need to add much more information to the History section, and maybe create a History of the University of Wisconsin-Madison in the future. We should definitely take apart the "timeline of notable events" and incorporate the information into the "History" paragraphs.
I created a UW-Madison template to add to all UW pages. Please add any articles to it that I forgot Template:University of Wisconsin-Madison. Add {{University of Wisconsin-Madison}} to the bottom of all UW-Madison articles. – Lordmontu (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I have received a number of very good ideas to help make UW a Featured Article. Please see My Talkpage for a great list from Bluedog423. Please Join the Big Ten Wikiproject if you are interested in the Big Ten Conference Thanks! – Lordmontu (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


I definitely agree that the history section needs to be beefed up. The events surrounding the famous "sifting and winnowing" situation must be included. See: [1] [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.153.165 (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Seventh, it will never happen. UW Madison isn't in the same category as Michigan/MS. They are among a select few for this category. If you made UW Madison a featured page, you'd have to make every state school in the nation a featured page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.241.136 (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This seventh point doesn't seem constructive or substantive. I think that the effort should continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.142.37 (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Redirect Tag

Okay, you all need to STOP changing the redirect information at the top of this article. There have been WAY too many reverts back and forth. Personally, I feel like this is a really petty thing to fight over. I am going to insert a note in the article code asking people to NOT edit the tag any further. Please, let's discuss this here on the talk page. I feel like at this point, a discussion is warranted despite the smallness of this issue! I propose a different solution to what has been see so far: a disambiguous page for the University of Wisconsin. This would be more neutral (and fair to other UW campuses). I realize when people are searching for University of Wisconsin, they are typically looking for the Madison campus (it's my alma matter!). Just an idea. Please discuss this issue further here! JeffreyN 01:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"University of Wisconsin" had statewide extension overall Wisconsin before 1956. It was basically a state wide system in the first place. I think it is fair to direct "University of Wisconsin" to the system article. But if you want to make "University of Wisconsin" a disambig. I'm ok with it. But in that case, your hatnote is quite confusing. I also think it is more appropriate to discuss this in the "University of Wisconsin" talk page. Miaers 01:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response! I can move this to "University of Wisconsin" as well, however I think more people will see it here. How about this, I will put a note about the discussion on the "University of Wisconsin" discussion page, to direct people here? That sound alright? As for my opinion on this matter, I would be happy with the idea Miaers proposed above. Truthfully, it doesn't matter much to me. Miaers, I assume when you say "your hatenote is quite confusing" you are referring to someone else's hatnote? I just wanted to be clear. I only made one small edit, and I think it lies outside the main issue here. JeffreyN 02:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If you make "University of Wisconsin" a disambig, "University of Wisconsin" will not direct to UW-Madison. Miaers 02:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This I am aware of, and I believe that was the point? For "University of Wisconsin" to not direct to UW-Madison? As a side note, I didn't realize that some of this was already discussed on the "University of Wisconsin" talk page. I will check that out :)
After reading some of the Talk:University_of_Wisconsin page, I am going to gracefully bow out of this discussion. As I stated, this seems like a relatively small issue in the grand Wikipedia scheme. I'll let you all who are more interested take this on :) But please, don't edit the hatnote on this article in a revert war. JeffreyN 02:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The disambig is back

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Wisconsin (disambiguation) (2nd nomination).

So surely, the hatnote should now point to it? Andrewa 06:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I see it now does! Great stuff. Andrewa 02:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Trademark infringment

U of W has already gotten at least one high school to change its 'W' logo because of supposed trademark infringement and is talking to many more, perhaps a section on this would be good. Bassgoonist 15:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Diversity

Request for help: Given the attention being paid to diversity issues on campus, can we add something to this page about the university's demographics? I'm not advocating turning this wiki into a dumping ground for news stories about the diversity 2008 plan, or anything like that - but I think a simple table breaking down the demographics of the university might have encyclopedic value. DiggyG 03:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

i agree, you have those stats or a link to em? ill add it inT ALK•QRC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 20:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
actually i came to wikipedia hoping to find those statistics...DiggyG 03:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health

Just a heads up to everyone, I created the above page, added an info box and some quick categories. I'm looking for some good pictures right now and looking for some good information to put there, but I'm pretty busy at the moment. So, if anyone wants to jump right in, please do. Cheers, PaddyM 16:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you add coordinates to the top of article?

Kind of new to Wikipedia, so excuse the newb question. I wanted to add coordinates for a location to the top of its wiki page, but I don't know how to do so. I noticed that the UW-Madison article has them, but I couldn't find it in the page's edit section. Can anyone tell me how or direct me to where I can find out. Thanks, much appreciated. --Crosscountrycpjon 20:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin High School

Anybody know anything about this place? It seems to have had some pretty distinguished alums, from actress Uta Hagen to former UW-Madison and UW System President John Carrier Weaver. --Orange Mike 22:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

expansion

someone should add a section on school greek organizations, fraternities and sorrorities and add in demographic and diversity information and statisticsT ALK•QRC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 20:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Land Grant University

Given that the UW was founded in 1849, with its first building constructed in 1851, and also given that the first Morrill Act establishing land-grant universities took effect in 1862, it is probably inaccurate to claim that the UW was "found[ed] as a land-grant university" (under the Research heading). Could someone with the relevant information please elaborate on the University of Wisconsin's relation to/involvement in the Morrill Acts and the land-grant university system? -- 20:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The UW was founded essentially as a teacher's college in 1848, though in the state constitution it called for a "state university." It couldn't really aspire to this lofty goal until the 1862 Morrill Act, which allowed it to expand its academic offerings and also admit women for the first time. This is the reason for the large Abraham Lincoln statue that sits atop Bascom Hill, as he was the main architect of the Morrill Act. So in short, the UW is a Morill Land-grant university, but was not founded as one.Chiwara 13:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

photos

What kind of photos does this article need? I could take take some myself if no copyright-free photos are available. DiggyG 03:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Numen-lumen.jpg

Image:Numen-lumen.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 Wikipedia: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 02:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I addressed the bot's concerns.DiggyG 01:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! I removed the image of the university logo from the infobox at the top of the article. Per the non-free content criteria:

Minimal usage. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary.

— Criterion #3A

Essentially, the point of the seal and the logo are to illustrate the university as a whole in a way that a mere photo cannot. That's okay to do on a limited basis. However, it's not a fair use to use both the seal and the wordmark logo, since they serve the same function. I've therefore removed the seal. Cheers! Esrever (klaT) 22:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Halloween Party Should Not Be In This Article

While the information about the Halloween Party is interesting, it seems it should either be in its own article or in the City of Madison article. Also, references are needed. FleetCaptain (talk) 05:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

UW Alumni Section

Tracked down the source of it to [3]. It appears to have been copied verbatim. I was going to update it but I am unsure of copyright/formatting issues surrounding such quotation. Advice from a more experienced editor would be appreciated. Alfeld (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


Facts can't be copyrighted. Only creative work qualifies as intellectual property. It's OK as is. I added the citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.152.77 (talk) 06:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

POV issues

Take a look at this, and this. Lead section needs to be re-written. Rankings don't belong in the lead. Similar changes were made to the UIUC page, which currently holds the same US News ranking as UW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk • contribs) 13:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


What's the problem? Rankings concisely represent the reputation of a school, which is clearly appropriate for an overview. Look at Michigan and Michigan State's entries. They're both featured articles and they've got rankings, prize winners, etc. right up top in the lead. The same is true for Indiana, UCLA, Marquette, Ohio State, Florida, Washington; the list goes on and on. If Illinois doesn't have rankings in the lead, it's because you removed them. You seem to be on a crusade... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.153.165 (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You may want to double-check your sources, or learn and understand diffs. Regardless, ranking-cruft has no place in lead paragraphs of universities. As you pointed out, its a Wikipedia-wide epidemic. Indiana, Ohio State, and Michigan State are HARDLY the caliber of institutions that need a cruft-filled opening. These aren't Ivy League schools. None of that changes the fact that this article is also guilty. Take off the Badger glasses. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Not that I need more in my favor, but take a look at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The world's premiere engineering university doesn't mention its US News ranking in the lead? Shocking! WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Extensive Edits of June 30 by 12.76.153.213

You made extensive changes to this page without giving any reason or justification. Changes that extensive call for some explanation here or at least in the Edit Summary. I am tempted to revert them but would like to give you a chance to explain because it looks like you did a lot of work and gave some thought to it. Please feel free to do so here. It would help if you logged in. If I don't see anything posted as a reason for the changes you made, I will change them back.FleetCaptain (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is what I did:

  • Added important facts that were missing, e.g. Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, Hoofers, UW-Extension, etc.
  • Tightened up the writing to make it more concise, less awkward, more organized
  • Removed irrelevancies or redundancies
  • Made factual corrections, e.g., the National Research Council is the body doing the ranking, not reporting it; Humanities Bldg. didn't open until 1970, but was built in late 60s; etc.

I made no major changes in content; just editorial work. Of course, if you read the before and after, you'll see what was changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.153.213 (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. FleetCaptain (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Campus buildings

How were these buildings selected? Why the power plant?? How about the Armory, Science Hall, Liz Waters, the Carillon?

How about a picture of the murals in the Rathskeller?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.153.165 (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It kinda is a weird selection of campus buildings. Would it be appropriate to make a University of Wisconsin - Madison Campus Buildings page? Kind of like how TV shows have a separate page of episodes?
--Gameshints (talk) 05:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
That is an excellent idea. --Danger (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Question about NRC rankings

I'm a little confused about the claim that the NRC has ranked Uwisc 70 times in the top 10. It seems to me that following the links to http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~jnewton/nrc_rankings/nrc1.html only shows 41 ranked disciplines. Can someone clarify the statement, or otherwise modify it? 72.137.1.172 (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Good question. Actually, the statement doesn't say that UW was ranked 70 times in the top 10; it says 70 programs were ranked in the top 10. The statement probably comes from some UW literature, but I couldn't find the source anywhere. One reason for the statement may lie in the use of the word "programs." The NRC ranks departments, not programs. Since departments often contain multiple programs, the statement may refer to all the programs in the departments receiving top 10 rankings.

In any case, the best place to look for the answer to your question is the National Research Council's report itself: [4] It's always better to use an original source (the "horse's mouth") than a secondary or tertiary source (so and so said), such as in the link you provided.

The NRC only completes its extensive survey about every 12 years (the last two were 1983 and 1995). It is currently in the process of compiling information from their most recent survey, whose data will be out soon, so the question will soon become moot.

If you don't find your answer in the actual 1995 report linked above, I'd let the statement stand until the new report comes out soon. 12.76.156.162 (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And that'd be a blatant verifiability violation. No citation = statement gone. You don't get to just 'let things stand'. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Although I agree the NRC's new report is supposed to come out soon, maybe it's best to state things to reflect a more standard application of the rankings (rather than one that demands "original research" or an obscure source). Anyway, UWisc is such a fine school that I doubt a specious claim would help it any more than the plain truth. 72.137.1.172 (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
That's my whole point in the POV thing. Schools like Wisconsin are good enough that when you just present the straight facts, the reader knows how good the school is. You don't need trumped up ranking-cruft to prove a point. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I found the data. The section is fixed now. 12.76.156.221 (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Student activism

The Student activism section is very narrowly focused on the most notorious activities of the days of student protest. Overlooked are the agitation for racial and gender equity, especially for women's studies and African-American studies departments[5]; the TAA strikes, supported by faculty walk-outs;[6] the student food service worker strike; and more. There is no mention of peaceful protest activities, such as the Anti-Military Ball. There is also no mention of activism before or after the 1960s-70s. (Activism isn't just protest.) This section needs to be expanded. 12.76.133.33 (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As a complete editorial aside, I loathe the TAA and almost everything for which they stand. Staging the walkout was a blatant disregard for Wisconsin state law, not to mention the thousands of undergraduates who had final exams the following week. Cheers, PaddyM (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
That's really irrelevant. The fact that they walked out (more than once) is a historical fact about the university.12.76.153.194 (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that. Which is why I said it was a complete editorial aside, and have not edited anything about it. Cheers, PaddyM (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
UW-Madison EH&S

I have created this vectorized logo for the EH&S department (for which I work). I worked very hard on it and would appreciate it if it were somehow incorporated into the Wiki.

Citations

Where are the citations for the material in this page?? It looks like there are significant and historically verifiable entries throughout the page that do not cite one source?! I would like to assume good faith, but as it stands now, much of the article appears to be either plagiarized or original research. --Caernarvon (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That's rather a sweeping statement. Anything which looks iffy should have the "citation needed" tag affixed. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
It is sweeping, I agree. Generally, I think it's a nice article on a good school. I posted the concern here rather than nitpick throughout it because there are so many uncited statements of fact. I don't have any reason to criticize the article inordinately, but it could stand some review from those who regularly contribute to and watch the entry. --Caernarvon (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There are 79 citations to this article, and although every last persnickety piece of information isn't yet cited, tremendous strides have been made in that direction in the past few months. As it stands now, this university article compares very favorably to most, in terms of citations. Check the Syracuse University article if you think this one is bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.156.53 (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think it's bad! Bad is when there are no/few citations and there's some controversy. That doesn't change the fact that there are large areas of uncited material and it doesn't necessarily need to be that way. This information must have a source, no? I've said enough on the issue - I'm going to try to find some references for the material in the next few days - part of the solution rather than just complaining about it! Cheers! --Caernarvon (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I just checked the Syracuse University page. You're right! Folks did considerable work researching info but didn't cite much. Beautiful school though! --Caernarvon (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I just added a citation on the "Wisconsin Idea." It shouldn't be controvercial, please feel free to review, though. --Caernarvon (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Memorial Union - alcohol - need for citation

I was in the University of Chicago's student union (Ida Noyes Hall) this spring and they served alcohol there. Citation to real authority is definitely needed for assertion that Wisconsin Union is only campus union in country that serves alcohol. FleetCaptain (talk)

Heck, it isn't even the only one in Wisconsin, as anybody who frequents the Brat House at UW-Milwaukee can testify. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
FleetCaptain - Make the changes, eliminate uncited nonsense!. But, the current version should satisfy, since it is historically accurate, cited and does not make the same claim about which you complained. Cheers, PaddyM (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ranking in lead

While I am categorically opposed to including any rankings in the lead, I recognize that there is a consensus to include them. However, one must be careful not to over-generalize the results of the rankings as appears has been done (which is common) regarding the US News rankings. Per the "How We Calculate the Rankings": "U.S. News helps by spotlighting schools with outstanding examples of eight types of academic programs that have been shown to enhance learning, including first-year experiences, learning communities, writing in the disciplines, senior capstone, study abroad, internships or cooperative education, opportunities for undergraduate research, and service learning." Note that these rankings are specifically intended to be confined to the undergraduate program alone, not generalized to the university as a whole. Please do not try to leverage the US News rankings to describe more than the undergraduate program. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, 40% of the weight of these rankings (20% freshmen retention rate, 15% undergraduate selectivity, and 5% graduation rate performance, see source linked above) is derived from undergraduate-only data, so again, this ranking (though often purposefully overgeneralized by universities) is intended only to measure undergraduate performance, not the university as a whole. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I applaud your effort, but you're pushing rope. The UW crowd likes to fluff up the ranking-cruft, because they want UW to be up in that public school elite arena with the Michigan's and Cal's, and will twist the evidence to make it seem as such. The 12.X.X.X IP's will make your life a living hell. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
There is only one ranking in the lead: US News & World Report. If you think the Carnegie classification is a ranking, then you really don't understand it. It's a classification scheme used by academics and comprised of categories of universities with similar attributes. Its categories are intended to cover broad swaths of characteristics, to impart basic info like whether a school is a major research university or a liberal arts college. All the Big Ten schools are in the same category: RU/VH. There are 96 universities in the country in that same category. The amount of research funding received by a university is also not a ranking; it's just an objective fact. Get off your high horse. As to being up there with Berkeley and Michigan, well the only ranking worth its salt is the one done by the National Research Council. (USNWR is abysmal.) Its last report, which admittedly is dated (1995), put Wisconsin 8th in the country (2nd among public universities, after Berkeley), tied with UCLA and Michigan. Their latest report is a couple of years delayed, but should be out by the end of the year. As to the "UW crowd," I'm a faculty member at an eastern doctoral/research university (Carnegie ranking: DRU) with an educational background that includes Penn State and UCLA. The so-called WikiKingOfMishawaka apparently has a hard time recognizing objectivity when he sees it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.153.231 (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Everyone: Ease off the personal attacks, please. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
It's cool, WikiKingOfMishawaka has been blocked for 48 hours for their behaviour. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Comprehensive university

The term "comprehensive university" is one widely used in the academic world. See What Is a Comprehensive University, and Do I Want to Work There? for one example of the use of the term. It refers to a university that teaches and conducts research in a broad spectrum of disciplines, in contrast to liberal arts colleges, or universities that focus on a narrow spectrum of studies. It is simply a descriptive term, not a peacock term, and one that is widely used and understood among those familiar with the classification and characterization of colleges and universities. It is used, for example, in the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. So please stop reverting something just because your understanding of the term is different than the commonly accepted one.

Thoughts on the Wisconsin Idea

The Wisconsin Idea is generally regarded as the genesis of the great research tradition that exists at the University, and yet there is no mention of it in the Research section. IMO the Wisconsin Idea should have its own article. Thoughts? Daniel J Simanek (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Similarly, the California Master Plan deserves its own article for the same reasons. I'm afraid that I'm not well-suited to substantially contribute to such articles but I'd be happy to sit in the peanut gallery and heckle offer advice and suggest sources. --ElKevbo (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The Wisconsin Idea already has its own article, and it's wikilinked in the UW article. (The California Master Plan also has its own article.) The two differ substantially in nature: The Wisconsin Idea is a philosophy and policy. The California Master Plan is a strategic plan. --CivilDisobedience 17:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I just noticed, but it is really filed in a bad place in {{University of Wisconsin-Madison}}. Its really not history, as it is still an active philosophy of the university. Anyone else in favor of re-categorizing? Daniel J Simanek (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
It's a concept with historical origins. It's very clearly labeled within the UW-Madison article, with its own header. The description there clearly states that the Wisconsin Idea continues to inspire the direction of the university. I see no problem with the way the things are set up now. --CivilDisobedience 03:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that the Wisconsin Idea has been given a dedicated article. I do however, have some concerns with the wording used to introduce the idea on this main UW-Madison page. To state "Students, faculty and staff are motivated by a tradition known as the Wisconsin Idea" seems like a stretch to me. Personally, I was unaware of the Wisconsin Idea concept until my senior year of undergraduate studies. I graduated in December 2008. I support the philosophy, and certainly think it has a place on this page, but to state the Idea "motivates" students is deceptive. The well documented concerns with the Wisconsin "Brain Drain" can loosely be construed as support for this feeling. (Reversing the Brain Drain - WTN) I apologize if this is the wrong forum to raise this opinion. I am new to contributing to Wikipedia. I appreciate any feedback. John Oliver 16:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

College Life

Under the Party School section, the MTV College Life show should probably have its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.53.220 (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've created a stub at College Life. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Whether the "flagship" status of a university can be presented as objective fact

There is currently an RfC on this question at Talk:University of Maine#Flagship RFC. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

All in the genes

I read somewhere the first all-synthetic gene was 1970 at the University of Wisconsin; can somebody confirm & add? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 11:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in University of Wisconsin–Madison

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of University of Wisconsin–Madison's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "USUnivRankings_ARWU_W":

  • From Florida State University: Shanghai Jiao Tong University (2008). "Academic Ranking of World Universities" (PDF). Institute of Higher Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Retrieved 2009-10-03.
  • From University of Pittsburgh: "Academic Ranking of World Universities". Shanghai, China: Center for World-Class Universities and the Institute of Higher Education of Shanghai Jiao Tong University. 2009. Retrieved 2009-11-22.

Reference named "USUnivRankings_USNWR_Eng":

Reference named "USUnivRankings_USNWR_Medr":

Reference named "USUnivRankings_USNWR_Law":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

re: restaurant section

I don't think there should be a section that only includes big red steaks because it's just a promotion now. Either the restaurant section should be more inclusive or we should cut it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LouSchiff (talk • contribs) 15:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. I agree and I deleted the section. ElKevbo (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Seal

I'm skeptical about putting the university seal (File:NumenLumen.svg) in such a prominent location since it is so rarely used. Just a personal anecdote, but I attended UW–Madison for two and a half years and I never saw this. I can't find it on the UW–Madison brand page either. –CWenger (^ • @) 20:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That's our standard practice; we aren't about "branding" (a repugnant practice anyway). The infobox includes the official seal, the permanent and unchanging thing, not whatever trademarks are currently in vogue this week. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
What I was trying to get at with the link to the branding site is I'm not sure this seal is even used officially anymore. If it was, certainly it would be somewhere on the UW–Madison site and labeled as such, right? I understand your position on branding, but we don't want an obsolete, unused, unrecognizable logo either. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
You mean like here, where the University's official website says, "Numen Lumen, the university’s official seal, is reserved for use on official administrative materials, such as certificates. It should not be introduced on print materials or websites for individual campus units."? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
That works for me. I only looked at the first two pages. Thanks. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Image request

Hi! I'd be very happy if somebody with suitable rights (anybody from UW-Madison?) could get the last two images ("Ban Dainagon emaki") from this page and either upload them to wikimedia commons or send me as email. They would be used for this article I am working on. If uploading to commons you can use a PD-Art license. If sending by email, please send to: [my-username-on wikipedia] + ".wikipedia@gmail.com". In case you are concerned about copyright/licensing, these are 2D reproductions (photographs or scans) of an old (12th century) piece of art. As such, the photographs themselves are considered public domain (see this) Thank you. bamse (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Distinction between "faculty" and "academic staff"

The article confuses faculty and academic staff. Academic staff constitute a separate labor pool classification from faculty. See http://acstaff.wisc.edu/index.htm, http://www.wisc.edu/facstaff/ and http://fpm-webstage.fpm.wisc.edu/employment/AboutUWMadison/AcademicStaff/tabid/149/Default.aspx Academic staff are not faculty, are not eligible for tenure, typically are not represented by unions, and only in 2010 became potentially eligible for union representation. Many hold advanced degrees, in engineering, science, or other fields. They constitute several thousand persons in a wide variety of specialties and roles that support or advance the goals of the university, largely without the public's knowledge of their existence or accomplishments. Academic staff outnumber faculty by about 3 to one at the University of Wisconsin Madison campus. People do transition sometimes from academic staff classification to become faculty members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.50.168.212 (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Native American sites section

We are students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison trying to put up information about the Native American sites on our campus. These are valued elements of the university and we would appreciate it if this text could be allowed to stand in the overview of the campus, along with museums and other buildings of interest. We are multiple students building the section, so it may appear sloppy for a day or so, but by Monday, when we hope to present our work to other students, we intend to have the materials in good shape. Please stop deleting these materials until then. Thanks for your interest in the University of Wisconsin-Madison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imervard (talk • contribs) 18:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Adding info about Native American sites on campus is OK, as long as it respects WP guidelines. Info added to the article should not have a particular point of view (editorialize), should not place undue emphasis on one particular aspect of matters covered by an article, and must be supported by reliable sources.
Much of the Native American info added to date has been way off topic, verbose, and written from a particular point of view. I have tried to edit the contributions to conform to WP standards, but my edits have all been reverted. WP is a place to collaborate, not a place to beat people over the head with your ideas. -- Mesconsing (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

House on Dayton

Not sure if maybe the recent addition of notable event of 1884 is semi-vandalism, but I added "citation needed" giving the (anonymous) editor the benefit of the doubt. However, if anyone knows better please make the appropriate change. LaurentianShield (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Could an administrator keep an eye on this issue please? The same anonymous editor used a real estate sales link as a citation. I deleted it, because it appears to be an attempt to use the article for advertising. LaurentianShield (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Party school section

As a result of apparent disputes about what does and doesn't constitute a reliable source @I am One of Many has suggested that the section is not necessary at all. I agree with this user and, furthermore, the removal of the section would also remove the source of controversy in this particular instance. I strongly urge its removal. Packerfansam (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't care whether the section stays or goes, but it's silly to suggest that Playboy Magazine is not a reliable source for this particular bit of information. JohnInDC (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree. Playboy is indubitably a reliable source, especially for a list compiled by itself. It was the removal of that specifically selected source and the information sourced to it that was controversial, not the source itself, or even the section. 32.218.32.52 (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Another way to look at it, the Playboy source had them listed a #8, which hardly supports the "Party School" reputation, especially when this was the only article on a university, which at some time had been ranked #1 and which also had a party school section. --I am One of Many (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
"Party school" lists both (and only) the Princeton and Playboy rankings and shows UW on both (though the latter appears to be last year's poll). Of the 15-16 or so distinct schools on the two lists (I didn't count carefully), about half mention their party school ranking somewhere in the school's article narrative. The UW article was the only one of them with an entire section, however. The foregoing tells me a few things - one is that the "party school" section here was too much; two is that this stupid statistic is, however, at least mentioned in some other articles here; and three is that "Playboy" is about as good a source for this as "Princeton Review". Again I don't care whether this tidbit stays or goes, but it's ridiculous to suggest there can be any dispute about the quality or reliability of the Playboy sourcing. JohnInDC (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

What is the "Orchard Street Research Project"?

Under "Timeline of notable events". As there are no citations for it I submit that that item is insignificant and should be removed. 97.99.21.92 (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on University of Wisconsin–Madison. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on University of Wisconsin–Madison. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

health care

so I want to apply for this college and I will finish the school in 2016 in June can you sent the application to my email karar.alsaedi@nicolet.us — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.174.179 (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Links modified on main page

Please review the links modified on the main page...—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

UW Public Ivy Citation

In the third paragraph of the introductory article, the first sentence, claiming that UW is a public ivy institution carries a public ivy designation and defines what a public icy institution is but does not have a citation to back either of the claims up.Danielbesinaiz (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on University of Wisconsin–Madison. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Wisconsin–Madison/Archive_1&oldid=1140409279"