Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:54, 23 August 2023

Purdue School of Engineering and Technology, IUPUI was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 6 August 2015 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Indiana / Purdue High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Indiana (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Indiana - Purdue (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Higher education This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Misplaced Pages. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education

In looking through the list of alumni

I see Trischa Zorn, Law 2005, but on her page all it says about her university career is, "Zorn studied at the University of Nebraska, and, as of 2001, "teaches third and fourth graders with special needs in Indianapolis". Perhaps someone who actually knows (i.e., not me) can update her page. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

   This G-search for "Trischa Zorn, Law 2005" (where the quotes were included in the query) produces 5 hits:

1. liquisearch names "Misplaced Pages Alumni (i.e. our article) as source
2. Pr. G-berg credits "World Heritage Encyclopedia Edition" via a thumbnail and bottom of the page text
3. World Heritage Encyclopedia includes boilerplate that includes WP among its sources
4. Wikiwand duplicates the text of this talk page, including at least 1 contrib i added in the last few hours]
5. "Wikipeetia, the misspelled encyclopedia" lives up to its slogan by misspelling about 90% of our text, including of course "teh".

   Someone (even more obsessive/compulsive than i) may want to do a WikiBlame search in pursuit of greater clarity about when it disappeared, or examine our colleague Carptrash's contribs against the possibility that they did something about it themself. When you know when it disappeared, Wikiblame will probably be less frustrating as a tool for determining when it first appeared, which may be helpful in understanding, or at least in further investigation for a source or explanation.
--Jerzy•t 03:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 5 October 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved - consensus to move to Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis with unspaced endash. (non-admin closure) --IWI (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis → Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis – Official guide explicitly says en dashes should not have spaces on either side. MOS:ENDASH also only prescribes spaces "when used as sentence punctuation", of which this is not a case. MOS:ENBETWEEN would also apply stating "Generally, use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities.", but would be contrary to official use. 17jiangz1 (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. OhKayeSierra (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Weak oppose: The university's official style guide doesn't matter, and the proposed hyphenation is confusing. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• @BarrelProof: How is it confusing? Also note that 1 2 3 most secondary sources use an unspaced hyphen, which is also what is called for by the Misplaced Pages MOS. In either case, it should be unspaced, just a question of hyphen or en dash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 17jiangz1 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I think I would vote for an en dash over a hyphen. My confusion may just be my own. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support, with an unspaced en-dash between the elements. BD2412 T 17:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Y Done. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

"Ooey pooey" pronunciation in lede

The lede currently includes a brief aside that the name of this institution is "colloquially known as 'Ooey-Pooey'" which is supported by two references: These references are both over 19 years old and only mention this pronunciation in passing. This is insufficient to support including this information in the article, much less including it in the lede sentence. ElKevbo (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't support removing it outright when the sources are so strong (if a little old), but I agree that the inclusion in the lead sentence may out size the usage in real life in modern times. IUPUI has joked on their twitter about the name and insist it is "I-U-P-U-I", and I know most people in Indiana (where I live) pronounce it that way, but ooey-pooey is still in use and a quick Google search shows plenty of people continuing to use it, often as a bit of a joke. Perhaps we can remove the current "colloquially known as..." and add in a sentence after the first saying: "The name is officially pronounced as individual letters and sometimes colloquially called "ooey-pooey"."--Cerebral726 (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Two 18-year old sources that barely mention this are far from "strong." ElKevbo (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that they barely mention the name and I was referring to the fact it was the NYT and the Chicago Tribune, not some random website.--Cerebral726 (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

If there are not any sources that contradict those sources, then I do not see why they should be removed. Misplaced Pages routinely uses sources 19 years old or older, in fact Misplaced Pages routinely uses sources that can be several hundred years old. In particular, we are talking about two high-quality newspapers, one of which uses the moniker 'Ooey-Pooey' in the title of the article. I do not see any issue with the current lede. @ElKevbo Have you encountered any sources that claim that the 'Ooey-Pooey' pronunciation has since been discontinued? If not, we revert to the latest RS, in this case these two articles. Eccekevin (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

It's disingenuous to demand that anyone prove a negative; that, of course, cannot be done.

Please explain why information that is only briefly mentioned in two 19-year old source merits inclusion in the lede. How is this the most critical information that readers must know immediately? ElKevbo (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Including pronunciations is standard practice in the lead, so I concur with Cerebral and Eccekevin here. However, we could improve how it's done. I'd suggest as one possibility that avoids undue weight we add an explanatory footnote after the acronym that explains it's sometimes pronounced "ooey pooey" (with {{IPAc-en}} and perhaps even an audio file) and sometimes "I-U-P-U-I". {{u|Sdkb}}  03:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to include information in the lede sentence - information that isn't discussed or used anywhere in the body of the article - based only on passing references in a few light weight articles that are nearly two decades old. This is a glaring violation of WP:DUE.

It's also dishonest to make a claim about contemporary practice only citing information that is quite old. ElKevbo (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I like Sdkb's idea of a footnote, which seems to also address ElKevbo's undue concerns. It should definitely state that I-U-P-U-I is the preferred pronunciation, and then use the NYT/Washington Post sources to state that it has been called ooey-pooey, without claiming how contemporary or common it is. --Cerebral726 (talk) 12:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I also like Sdkb's idea of a footnote. (For ElKevbo concerns: there is no Misplaced Pages Policy that says that a 19 year old source cannot be used. A more recent one might supersede it, but seemingly we do not have one. Secondly, the position in the lede is warranted by MOS:LEADPRON, and is commonly done as pointed out by Sdkb). Given MOS:LEADPRON, and the fact that these are the most recent RS on the matter, the lede is fine as is, also I am also ok with changing it to a footnote. Finally, there are more recent sources, albeit in less reliable sources than the NYT or CT, like this one from 2022 and others. Eccekevin (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'm on board with clarifying the typical pronunciation is the I-U-P-U-I version and making sure it stays in the lede per MOS:LEADPRON. I believe the footnote should read "Typically said with the letters pronounced separately, the university is also sometimes phonetically pronounced "ooey-pooey" .<refs>" Thoughts?--Cerebral726 (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@ElKevbo:, your template warning stating I am engaged in an edit war seem unnecessary and unhelpful. The clear WP:STATUSQUO right now is including the colloquial pronunciation, and the current consensus in this discussion is clearly leaning towards continuing to include it. Maintaining that status quo is far from edit warring. --Cerebral726 (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

"I'm right" is not an exception to WP:EW. I strongly encourage you to review WP:OWN. ElKevbo (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say I was reverting it because I am right it is better, I am reverting it because it is the status quo. Do you disagree that including the pronunciation qualifies as the WP:STATUSQUO? --Cerebral726 (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

No, not in this instance. That's abundantly clear from the discussion above. ElKevbo (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what aspect of WP:DUE you think affects status quo, which regards the pre-existing state of the article (in this case it was up since at least January). Regardless, consensus (I believe) seems to be in favor of it's inclusion given the sources and MOS:LEADPRON, so this conversation seem relatively moot. I will continue to leave the article as it stands until the above discussion is complete, as I suggest you do as well. --Cerebral726 (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ElKevbo, please don't give out edit warring warnings for edits like the one Cerebral made. It's clearly not edit warring when the editor hasn't previously edited this article since March and has established a prevailing consensus here at talk. My reading of this discussion is that we should go with the footnote compromise, but really, we all need to take a step back—whichever way this goes, it isn't the end of the world. Best, {{u|Sdkb}}  04:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: please be mindful of WP:CIVIL. I am assuming good faith, but you have been a bit uncivil so far, throwing around terms like "ridiculous" and "dishonest" at other's user's suggestions. You have accused editors of WP:OWN without proof (especially since you are the only one who disagrees out of 5 users). So far, you have four editors politely disagreeing with your interpretation of WP:DUE and WP:LEADPRON. Please don't engage in personal attacks, no need. 04:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Eccekevin (talk)

I just came upon this discussion by chance, almost made an edit to the article before I realized this was contentious. I just wanted to weigh in with a couple of thoughts:

• We should not use the term "phonetically" in the footnote text. There is no reasonable way this pronunciation could be considered phonetic, so that is confusing. The letters "iu" are not typically pronounced like the "oo" in "pool".
• Based on all the sources, this statement doesn't seem to provide enough context. It should note that the term is used colloquially, as has already been stated in this discussion, and not by the school itself. This is different from other situations, such as "Cal," which is a self-applied moniker. The Chicago Tribune source states it is "annoying" to some at the school. It is also worth noting that all the sources provided are out-of-town publications.
• Also, based on the sources, it is worth noting the term appears to be falling out of fashion. I don't think it is clear enough to just say it is "sometimes" pronounced this way. Aside from how many fewer recent sources there are, here is a school publication which speaks about the pronunciation as historical: "The awkwardly phrased Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis opened in 1969. The school, affectionately called "Ooey-Pooey" in those days...". Dominic·t 22:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  Nice find with the more recent source! Given that, I'd be fine with changing the footnote to read "historically". {{u|Sdkb}}  23:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

The problem with that source is that it says it was called Ooey-Pooey in those days, but then a few paragraphs down it uses the nickname to refer to the current team, implying that the nickname started in those days, but was not limited to them and is still used. Aditionally, being an offiical website for the team, it is not technically a WP:RS. Eccekevin (talk) 03:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, as I pointed out, there are sources even from 2022 that use the term.ref>"College Basketball Bet Of The Day: The Last Stand". Off Tackle Empire. 10 February 2022.</ref> Eccekevin (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, "historically" might be overdoing it, but that is why I think something like "falling out of fashion" (as in, in the process of), and that it is not favored by the school community itself, address the concerns. Your example is interesting, but the context of that piece is important, as my reading of the way it is being used is that the author is knowingly using the disfavored term as a teasing reference to the team. The whole article is about IUPUI's recent failures, and there is a bit of a mocking tone. In any case, the sources that are actually discussing the term (such as the Chicago Tribune and iupuijags.com ones) shed more light on the matter than these ones that just use the term with little meaningful discussion, and are more useful in an encyclopedic sense. Dominic·t 01:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is that it is WP:OR. We can't use "my reading of it" as a source. "Sometimes pronounced" is the most accurate, since we don't have sources claiming that this pronunciation is more common, increasing in usage, or decreasing in usage. The Chicago Tribune says that the term is used "annoyingly to some at the school", but never claims it is not used anymore (if anything, the fact it annoys some people shows it is still in circulation). The other sources from the last 5 years don't say anything about the nickname falling out of fashion. Finally, the iupuijags.com sources is not technically a WP:RS because it is not independent (although it still uses the nickname to refer to the current 2017 team, so not even sure that source would be good for your point). I guess the only thing is we could specify that is is "unofficial" nickname, but there's nothing in the sources that suggest it is not used anymore or that it is falling out of fashion. Eccekevin (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Ralph Gray attributes the pronunciation to a former president of IU. At the time that the school was founded, the IU Bloomington and Purdue U campuses were not exactly excited to have another state university ... and in the state's capitol. So, Joseph Sutton's off-hand comment was and did become an "unwanted nickname." See https://www.google.com/books/edition/IUPUI_the_Making_of_an_Urban_University/yOnNSoCtD5YC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=nickname -- Jaireeodell (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm on board with switching "phonetically pronounced as" to "colloquially pronounced as", since it succinctly explains it's ambiguously unofficial and non-formal status, and if there is much more to say in terms of whether it's historic or not, perhaps it should be spelled out elsewhere in the article. --Cerebral726 (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

References

1. Conklin, Mike (17 March 2003). "Ooey-pooey: Tourney team with image issue". Chicago Tribune. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 16 Jan 2022.
2. Picker, David (19 March 2003). "COLLEGE BASKETBALL; Big Question Answered: Just What Is I.U.P.U.I.?". The New York Times. Retrieved 16 Jan 2022.
3. "College Basketball Bet Of The Day: The Last Stand". Off Tackle Empire. 10 February 2022.
4. "A Tale of Two Accreditors | Inside Higher Ed". www.insidehighered.com.
5. "Seen and heard at the Arizona-Gonzaga game". Arizona Daily Star. Retrieved 1 May 2022.
6. "College Basketball Bet Of The Day: The Last Stand". Off Tackle Empire. 10 February 2022.
7. "A Tale of Two Accreditors | Inside Higher Ed". www.insidehighered.com.
8. "Seen and heard at the Arizona-Gonzaga game". Arizona Daily Star. Retrieved 1 May 2022.

I like “colloquially pronounced” Eccekevin (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

New pages, or rename?

I know this is a bit premature, but what will happen to this article when Purdue and IU part ways in 2024? Will new articles for IUI and PUI need to be made, or will this one simply be renamed IUI and a new PUI article be made? It makes the most sense for this one to be renamed since the majority of the university will become IUI (most of it already is anyhow); but then again, the same could have been said for IPFW and PFW, yet there are separate articles for those two entities. Or this one could be renamed, and a new IUPUI article be made to detail IUPUI-specific history. I'm assuming IUPUC will just become IUC completely, and the few programs Purdue offers at that university will be absorbed by the Polytechnic there, but of course we haven't received news about IUPUC's status just yet. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Good to get the conversation started, thanks for doing so. My thoughts are two new separate articles (IUI and PUI or whatever their names will be) with IUPUI remaining here will make the most sense, since both new universities will have similar levels of claim to the history, and IUPUI up to its dissolution is a notable and well-documented entity in and of itself. Keeping the history of this page intact is most important too in terms of moving and recreating. --Cerebral726 (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Cerebral726 ... keep IUPUI and begin a new entry for IUI. I'm not sure though that PUI is an actual entity. It appears that Purdue is extending its West Lafayette campus to Indianapolis. (Too soon to tell, maybe.) Disclosure: I work at IUI, so I will not contribute to the edits. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I also agree with this approach although I reserve the right to change my mind as we learn more about this split and its ramifications. ElKevbo (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of High-importance
• B-Class Indiana articles
• High-importance Indiana articles
• WikiProject Indiana articles
• B-Class Purdue articles
• High-importance Purdue articles
• WikiProject Purdue articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class Higher education articles
• WikiProject Higher education articles