Jump to content

Talk:University of Miami/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Various explanations

For this revert

  • The Law School is the only other major graduate school that belongs to UM, so I added it to the intro with the Med School and Marine School.
  • There is not enough content to split off to make into a separate article on the Business School just because the GA reviewer said that it could be split off. All of the content that was at University of Miami School of Business Administration was from the rankings section from this article, and a single sentence referenced to the Business School's main page.
  • None of the links to the Miami Herald or Sun Sentinel articles actually point to the articles that they used to because they've been kicked off to the archives. If readers and editors of this page cannot access the sources used, what point is it to keep them?
  • A whole paragraph dedicated to the strike is not necessary considering that there is a mention of the strike two paragraphs earlier.
  • I don't know why the Iron Arrow paragraph was removed at all. This just looks like more of Racepacket's bias against its inclusion.
  • The Split U is a free image it seems, and its inclusion in the athletics section concerns the fact that it was originally just the athletic logo. I see the sandwiching issue now. Also its free/non-free status is up in the air again.

—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It would have been helpful if you had explained before you reverted or at least after the first revert. 1) Law school is on main campus and we were discussing geographically separate operations regardless of their graduate school status. 2) I have revised the University of Miami School of Business Administration article at User:Racepacket/UM and people can edit it. I will move it back to article space later this week. 3) We are removing the see also section. The coverage of the strike was reduced in a quid pro quo for the see also, so it is logical to restore a brief explanation of the strike. I removed the mention of it that was in the same sentence as the Presidential debate. The problem is that the mention creates the impression that the strike was against UM when it was actually against a contractor. I have included three valid references. (By the way, printed newspapers are reliable sources even if they are not currently available on the web.) 4) The first Iron Arrow mention was there to explain its relationship to the Board of Trustees. That is now being disputed by MiamiDolphins3. He no longer views Iron Arrow membership has being a higher honor than being a UM Trustee, so I am removing it from the Trustee section. The second reference in the honorary society paragraph remains. Racepacket (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I've reworded the first lede so it discusses other campuses again. The Business School is still not really all that notable for inclusion on its own (again, maybe the Music School's page can be merged). The See also section is still gone, but the strike itself is still mentioned in prose, although not to that much of an extent. Anything else is really giving it too much weight in this article. I don't know what MiamiDolphins3 has to do with the Iron Arrow retention, but it's in the "Student life" section, which should be enough I guess. Also, the references for the strike section DO NOT WORK ANYMORE. The articles have been moved to the Sun Sentinel's and Herald's archives, so they cannot be accessed for free.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Except through the wayback machine it seems.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec) 1) I have examined a number of national research universities. Without exception, each has faculty which teach both undergraduates and graduate students. There is a UM Graduate School, but it does not have a separate faculty, which is the typical approach. The issue of separate campuses have nothing to do with a graduate/undergraduate distinction. Many universities have multiple campuses. Some satellite campuses offer undergraduate instruction and others happen to be for just graduate students. We are here dealing with just the issue of where the campuses are located not where undergraduates or graduate students are taught. 2) I did provide archive links for the three articles covering the strike. 3) Yesterday MiamiDolphins3 objected to the first Iron Arrow reference because he disagrees that it separates the honorary role from the other aspects of Trustee service. Racepacket (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I just feel that the School of Law should be mentioned somewhere in the lead, as the University's Med School and RSMAS both receive a mention. I would think a law school would receive such due mention. The strike archive links were not all working until now (for some reason you had one link to the diff it was added).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Both MiamiDolphins3 and I believe that Jackson Memorial and the Law School should be mentioned. You're in the minority here, Racepacket.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I removed the reference to the medical school because there is more than a medical school on that campus. I will remove the specific reference to the RSMAS to keep things balanced in the lead paragraph. Please see how I broke this up into a different paragraph.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Racepacket (talk • contribs)
It's the Med School, Jackson Memorial (the only one that has an article), and a bunch of other hospitals on that campus. I don't see why you should remove anything about Miller, RSMAS, or Law from the lead.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I misspoke. I meant more than one hospital. UM bought the former Cedars hospital. I think we have reached a good point. Racepacket (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Housing

Racepacket has raised issues about the content I added to the article regarding the on-campus housing accomodations. Other than tagging the content as being a POV section and stating that the section gives "undue weight to undergraduate housing", he does not go into any more detail as to why the section does not have a neutral point of view. In addition, content regarding six fraternities with houses on campus was removed entirely and moved off to the student life section where the content is not even remotely similar.

I would like to give Racepacket an opportunity to explain why:

  • The section does not have a neutral point of view,
  • The section gives undue weight to undergraduate housing when no graduate housing exists,
  • The fraternity houses should not be mentioned under student housing, and
  • The fraternities with houses should not be listed.

—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I did respond below your comment on my talk page.
1) Regarding fraternities, there are 31 fraternities and sororities, and there is no reason to name the six that have their own houses. You state that the six houses are not owned by the University, so even though they are within a couple of blocks of the campus, e.g., map it is not clear to me that they are "on campus." If they are not on campus, they do not belong in the campus section. Absent more information, I would just add a clause to the 31 fraternities sentence in the "Student life" section saying that 6 of them have separate houses.

2) The section gives undue weight to undergraduate housing compared to other elements of the campus. I would not object to a sentence explaining that UM sold its married student housing or that it abolished its separate athlete dorms. (This could be in either the "History" section, the "Housing" subsection or the "Student life" section. Most readers don't care about the convenience store or laundry details. The reference does not support the motive for a separate convenience store in University Village. The article also needs to balance housing versus all other elements of the University. A majority of the students live outside the dorms.
3) The section reads like an ad for the housing department. Are there any negatives or controveries? I know there was controversy over abolishing the separate athlete dorm. I found independent newspaper articles covering the decision to abolish the athlete dorm, are there other non-UM sources covering housing? Racepacket (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
The six fraternity houses are considered "housing" and are mentioned in the website referenced. Each set of housing accomodations gets a total of two sentences of coverage, I would not call that undue weight. I did not encounter anything about a separate athlete dorm during a cursory search of the UM website for information regarding the current student housing arrangements. I've removed statements concerning the convenience store, added content concerning graduates being allowed in University Village, and made it more clear concerning the six frat houses which are described as "on campus". Do I say anything positive about the residential colleges? No, they are just being described. I would call that "neutral" and I would appreciate other people's input before the two of us continue conversing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your recent edits. Again, the basic problem with the immediately above paragraph is that it parses the UM website. In general, the UM website is written by low-level PR-oriented staff members. Official reports, dissertations, and other high-level documents (even if they happen to be posted on the UM website) is much more authoritative. When a reporter from the Miami Herald or the defunct Miami News writes a story on the closing of the athlete dorm and the sale of the married student housing apartments, one expects that to be a more authoritative source. (e.g.,Mell, Randall (October 17, 1990). "UM to Eliminate Its Athletic Dorms" (subscription required). Sun Sentinel. p. 1C. Retrieved 2010-02-10. Next fall, incoming freshman athletes will draw for residential college rooms) If a faculty committee were to issue a report on the status of housing at UM and what needs to be done to improve it, that would have more credibility than the UM website, particularly the "prospective students" webpages. There is an old saying about "lies, big lies, and webpages written for prospective students and faculty...." Racepacket (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
The statements made in the article only concern the most basic facts about the current residential colleges and other living areas. There are no statements being made concerning former athlete housing or anything else that would require substantial reliable sources outside of primary ones.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

‎ This article is being revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Text that has been identified as copying or closely paraphrasing previously published sources is being removed. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Certainly if these are edits made in cleaning up copyright problems, you are welcome to repair any inadvertent alterations in meaning so long as you do so in your own words or with brief, clearly marked excerpts in accordance with WP:NFC. I should be finished with the review of this article soon; I'm afraid I was distracted by another issue today, but will try to put it top on my list to pick up tomorrow. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Two suggested edits

In the residential section, I do not believe the individual names associated with the buildings should be linked. It would be appropriate to link them if there are references elsewhere to them as individuals, but not as buildings. Also, I think the summary listings of alumni and faculty are so subjective as to their inclusions and exclusions that it would simply be better to include the links to the respective pages (as was the case before the most recent edit). MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I appreciate your comment. However, it appears that in a number of other university articles, there is a link to the person in whose honor the building is named. Perhaps it would be more clear if just the name were wikilinked: [[Irving Ives|Ives]] Hall It is a point of controversy within WikiProject University as to whether each dorm/residential college deserves its own article. I can see how the wikilinks may lead the reader to think that the link will take them to a separate article on the building rather than on the honoree. I personally do not support a separate article on each dorm, unless the dorm is on the National Register of Historic Places. Either way, the reader may wonder why a building was named after someone and the significance of the name. Racepacket (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Research

Articles covering a national ranked reserach university have about 5 inches of research coverage. See for example Cornell_University#Research and Massachusetts Institute of Technology#Research, even though these universities have separate articles covering individual academic units. The WP:UNI guidelines specify a separate section of the main article, "Research — This section may be included as a subsection of academic profile, but there needs to be information regarding research expenditures, government support and significant grants (land grant or space grant status, in the U.S. for example), the scale of the physical research plant, and notable research programs." I disagree with you moving content out of this section into the individual articles. I would not object to you also developing content in the articles of the individual schools, but as written you are creating the impress that there is very little noteworthy research being conducted at the University of Miami. Please explain why you are repeatedly deleting material from the Research section. e.g., [2] Racepacket (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The Medical School and Rosenstiel School are technically independent research facilities, while still teaching schools as part of the University of Miami. The content on this article should really focus on the research performed at the main University of Miami campus, I would think. The content can be moved back if consensus believes it should be on both pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, I told you months ago why I removed that one sentence about the "Harvey" mannequin. It does not tell anyone anything about the school and it's just a random piece of referenced trivia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Not to be repetitive, but if you look at the Cornell and MIT research sections, they cover the entire university. Both Cornell and MIT have satellite campuses, as does University of Miami, but the research section is comprehensive for all campuses. All of the academic units of UM can be included regardless of where the research is performed. Please assist me in beefing up the Research section, as outlined in the WP:UNI guidelines. I would think that a research university such as UM would have at least 5 inches of research coverage discussing items with national significance. For example, I came across "Harvey" while working at the University of Illinois Medical School, and Harvey was in wide-spread use nation-wide in Medical Schools at the time. Can't we develop a series of innovations that have given UM a national research reputation? Racepacket (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
We should not mention 'everything that UM has contributed to the world of science, the arts, medicine, etc. It just seems like an unencyclopedic trivia section with references. The "Harvey" thing is just that. And there is a short paragraph on the research of both the Med and Marine Schools on the article now, and certainly one that does not consist of nearly 2k worth of text on 3 references about the research performed at Little Salt Spring.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that 5 or 6 concrete examples of things developed at UM which have impact beyond the campus would be valuable. If you don't like "Harvey" come up with some other examples. Racepacket (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The "Harvey" thing is entirely superfluous. I am sure there are more things about UMiami that you can find to put on the page other than the random sentence about a medical dummy.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
If you have ever been a patient in a teaching hospital, you would be greatful knowing that the students were practicing on Harvey rather than on you. Any other ideas? Racepacket (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think that the research section should be a simple bullet list of these interdisciplinary programs and specialized centers. The article should explain what they are or what they do. Also, the section should include the annual expenditures on research so that readers will understand the magnitude of the programs. (Other metrics, such as number of researchers, number of patent applications, etc could also be used to describe them.) If a center is a joint program with another university, we should so state. Racepacket (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
    That wouldn't be a problem if you hadn't paraphrased or copy-pasted information from other websites it seems.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Alumni & faculty lists

MiamiDolphins3 keeps removing these, claiming the selection to be subjective and not necessary for the page. The content was specifically added to expand the section, which he keeps reverting. I keep telling him to bring it up here, which he did, but Racepacket has ignored the commentary anyway.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The whole idea behind developing the separate pages was to avoid the subjectivity associated with inclusion/exclusion on the main page. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I am unclear as to which commentary I have ignored. We should decide as a group whether we want to just have the two references to the two pages or to summarize their content in prose. I agree with MiamiDolphins3 that we need to have criteria for which ones we include, because it makes no sense to have a long list if we have any list. The other approach would be to summarize the list pages by topic:

UM has a number of alumni notable in the fields of arts and entertainment, business, law, politics and science. Alumni athletes have been prominent in golf, Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, the Women's National Basketball Association, the National Football League, tennis, swimming, track and sports administration. Alumni have also competed in the Olympics.

Racepacket (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
That does not cover the faculty, for which MiamiDolphins3 also feels is subjective. A list of names chosen from the group at large may be "subjective" but it provides the reader with more information than just saying the specific fields the people are involved with.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The alumni and faculty pages are well done and well organized. My point is that the summary list is so subjective as to who is and is not included/excluded, that we'd be better off with the page as it was, directing to the more comprehensive listings on the two links. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
It is not beneficial just to have two blank sections (or one blank section) pointing to two other articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I am not talking about changing the two separate list pages. I am agreeing that we need a criteria for summarizing those pages in the main article. How about taking the ten alumni with the most ghits or the ten faculty with the most ghits? I am also willing to go with MiamiDolphins3's approach of having a section entitled Notable people with the two cross references, but no other text. Racepacket (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

So do we have consensus to either a) use the paragraph quoted above, b) use the top 10 ghits, or c) leave it blank? Racepacket (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Leave it blank. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Apologies for reverting without discussion but leaving the section blank is not an option. Sorry! --ElKevbo (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Nothing in WP:Summary requires a summary and, in this particular case, it is counterproductive because it is highly subjective. Better to let the stand alone linked pages speak for themselves. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Two to one is not a consensus, and ElKevbo here makes it 2-2.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten the alumni section to remove names and any semblance of "subjectivity" that MiamiDolphins3 believes there is. I cannot find a way to rewrite the faculty section that does not sound like utter bullshit. I cannot say "the faculty of UM has had leading names in the subjects of..." because that could go for any University or college. Other than Dirac and Emiliani (two big names in their field and the only ones I know of as a scientist) and Van Vliet (she was one of my professors and I saw her on the list) everyone was chosen at random. I skipped over Gruber, someone else I know of, and tried my best to pick other people from other schools and fields.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:University of Miami/Archive 3/GA4

First sentence

The first sentence lists a number of nicknames for the school joined by the conjunction "and." It was "or" until August 29. I changed this back to "or," but User:Ryulong changed it back to "and." Please take a look at the first sentences of the following articles:

Of course, I would prefer to delete all of the nicknames from the lead sentence of the article. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Merrick's gift

Was it $4 million or $5 million? People are changing it without sources. diff. I can't find a source now. Racepacket (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I found http://www.hmsf.org/rc/guides/1958-003.htm Racepacket (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


For some reason, Forbes and the WM rankings are listed in "overall" rankings. These are specialized rankings, and should be moved to the list of "other" rankings. 129.171.233.74 (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Color chart reference

This is entirely unnecessary. There is no other article on this project that has a citation for the colors used in the infobox. This is just trivial nonsense. It should be removed, again, as I had done days ago, but no one bothered to start a god damn discussion explaining why it was necessary.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion at Ryulong's talk page] seems clear. I don't have time to deal with this. Ryulong went to the brink of 3RR and dismissed it with "I'm not discussing this further.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)" and following my noticed to {{ping|Mark Arsten]] decided to make this. Consensus of 4 editors says its a justified inclusion because it is sourcing the school's colors as noted that 3 people (including myself once) reverted Ryulong's removal. No drama, but when you say you are not going to discuss it further and proceed to edit war, you should not continue reverting. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for starting the discussion! I agree that it's a tiny bit trivial but it's (a) a factual assertion that can be (and by some standards already has been) challenged so WP:V demands that include a source and (b) completely harmless and may in fact be helpful for some readers. I don't plan on adding this to any other articles myself but I don't see why this is something that should drive significant debate. It certainly shouldn't be something that otherwise well-intentioned editors edit war about! ElKevbo (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The only reason I said I was not going to discuss it further was because I had nothing more to say on the subject to the people who were actually involved instead of an IP editor who suddenly began wikistalking me. And it "shouldn't be something that otherwise well-intentioned editors edit war about" because it should be an entire non-issue that should not require sourcing at all because no one in their right mind would challenge the god damn HTML codes for the colors green and orange used on this page because they might not be HTML green or orange.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I see the (possible) source of confusion! Many (probably all) institutions specify very particular shades of colors to ensure that their materials - pamphlets, brochures, signs, clothing, etc. - are consistent. The orange used by this university is different from the orange used by other institutions such as the University of Tennessee, Clemson University, or the University of Texas. That is why the specific RGB values are specified and referenced. Some institutions are also very picky about the names of their colors, too, which may be why this is sourced in some articles. ElKevbo (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why we need a source to show that the colors we are using in the article are the ones defined by UM as "Miami green" and "Miami orange".—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
How do we know those are indeed the correct colors for this institution? ElKevbo (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I could download the logo from miami.edu, pop open MS Paint, and use the eyedropper.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like WP:OR. Wouldn't it just be easier to use the reliable source provided by the subject? ElKevbo (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how WP:OR is possible when you're using information directly provided by the subject. There's just no necessity to cite the color boxes because no one would challenge it. If anything, it would be more pertinent to find a source that explains why the colors were chosen, which when I was a student was explained to me as being the colors associated with the orange tree.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I had no idea that this debate had already gone on prior to today, so I'm sorry for being late to the party. The reference I found backed up what was already in place, and I don't see why we can't have a link to a school document showing what their preferred colors are and how to use their various logos. Collecting those sorts of references on Wikipedia makes it all the more of an interesting place to go and I figure that more references aren't a bad thing for a website that always gets challenged for being able to have edits performed by anyone. Frank12 (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It's such an unimportant piece of minutae though. No one is going to challenge the hexadecimal codes for the colors used. Such a document is more suited to being mentioned on this page for its use in coordinating the article rather than using it as an inline reference.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I didn't initially see the visual identity reference below the logo, so my added reference was redundant in that sense. If that extra use of the reference is what caused an issue, then I am terribly sorry to have gotten you fired up. That's just poor observance on my part. My line of thought was, "here, this is what the school says are the official color shades, in case someone wanted to know or if a default shade was already displayed in place." I now see that it was already there and I can appreciate that Miami uses their preferred shades in their logo, because it doesn't seem like many schools are doing that. Frank12 (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but I'd like to point out the obvious: the colors are already being used in the logo. Maybe it would necessary for referencing a school's colors when they don't match up with their logo but it seems completely unnecessary in this case. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 07:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I started researching a lot of these when I noticed cases where your example happened. For instance, Akron's athletic logo uses a tan-looking gold, however, the school's official colors give the gold a more-yellow looking shade. Why they do that, I'm not sure, but I suppose it's as easy as the school declaring what their official colors are and their athletic teams choosing to wear variations in them. Another example is Indiana, who uses a shade of cream as their official color, but wears white in place of it on the field/court. I still think a reference to their official shades would be good to have somewhere on the page, mainly because it's still a reference. Thanks for the input. Frank12 (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The problem here is that everyone is right. The school uses what it called "Miami Green" and "Miami Orange" on some logos and just plain "green" and "orange" on others. [3] . In the end, I really think that this whole thing is silly. "Miami green" is still green. "Miami orange" is still orange. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to share my thoughts: no, Ryulong, we will keep reliable sources. thanks for taking the time to read this post — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHeartUM (talk • contribs) 13:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It is pointless to have a reference to their guide, still. No other school has this source for the damn colors in their logo. And I'm tired of this discussion being disrupted by the sockpuppet of someone who got pissed off at me because I felt that a hat note was useful at Bleach (anime). Get over it you moron.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2015

Please change the chairman from Leonard Abess to Stuart Miller who is the current chair. For reference, you can use http://www6.miami.edu/communications/trustees/members.html. Thank you! MIAWikigrl (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done thanks for providing a reference - Arjayay (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 28 external links on University of Miami. 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 04:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on University of Miami. 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 16:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on University of Miami. 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 20:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on University of Miami. 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, 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Question about Title XI lawsuit inclusion

Does the Title XI lawsuit meet the encyclopedic threshold for inclusion in this article? It now comprises an entire stand-alone section of three full paragraphs. I don't believe it does. Like companies, universities get sued routinely and this incident seems encyclopedic to the professor involved but not to an entire university. But I have not removed it and would instead prefer some input and consensus here. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The Title XI lawsuit can be included, but it should not be a stand-alone section. I suggest to cut out details and move it into a main section. Other universities like UC Berkeley have had multiple Title XI lawsuits, yet the Wikipedia page only mentions them briefly. Bcf1291 (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The section was excessive, per WP:UNDUE. Thanks for your edits. X4n6 (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on University of Miami. 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) 19:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 45 external links on University of Miami. 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) 08:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Walsh?

Under #History, paragraph 3, "In 1929, Walsh and the other members of the Board of Regents resigned ..." Some explanation of who this person was, is needed. This looks to be a problem possibly created by an earlier revision. rags (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC) rags (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


"The first Board of Regents of the University of Miami was founded in 1926 and chaired by William E. Walsh, a Miami Beach municipal judge. Judge Walsh remained chairman until 1929, when he and other board members resigned in the wake of the financial collapse that followed the end of the Miami land boom and the hurricane of 1926."

http://trustees.miami.edu/about-the-board/index.html

Do you want to add William E. Walsh to the article?

Bcf1291 (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

"Da U" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Da U and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 17#Da U until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Date Change

I am changing the charter date from April 18 to April 8. The current source leads to a dead page so I am adding a current one with the correct information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauramt1023 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Miami/Archive_3&oldid=1170925877"