Talk:University of California, Santa Cruz/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Major changes

I just reorganized this article to reflect the standard format at Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities. szyslak (t, c) 22:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Added to category Universities and colleges in the San Francisco Bay Area

Although Wikiproject San Francisco Bay Area has stated that Santa Cruz County-based articles should not be included within the scope of the project and should be included instead in the proposed Wikiproject Central Coast unless absolutely necessary (Discussion here), UCSC's administrative presence in the South Bay-proper (Lick Observatory on Mount Hamilton, the NASA Ames Research Center at Moffett, etc.) is so extensive that I think it merits inclusion in the category, independent of whatever other unofficial ties students and faculty have with San Jose and environs, however strong they may also be. Dynaflow 04:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Suburban vs. Rural

What does everyone think of changing the campus's classification from "suburban" to "rural?"

I have noticed that UCSC has been classified by the college guides as a suburban campus, and UCSC's Wikipedia infobox follows suit. However, I believe this classification might be the result of some sort of echo effect amongst the guidbook publishers, magnifying a primordial error, and should not be taken as reflective of reality. UCSC seems to be, prima facie, a rural campus. The actual "working" areas of the campus are inside a treeline separated from town by a mile or a mile and a half of grassy void and the campus itself is bordered to the east by a forested open space preserve, to the west by a cattle ranch and a whole lot of nothing until you reach Davenport, and to the north by a state park with miles and miles of forest. The defining feature of the interior of the campus is the forest. Does anyone know what set of definitions "they" were operating under when the UCSC was classified suburban? --Dynaflow 10:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing population size of the city the college resides in. JoeSmack ^Talk 12:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but I think it has more to do with the spacial relation of the campus to its nearest built-up area and its on-campus environment. UC Davis, for example, seems to be classified as "small urban," which makes sense since its campus bleeds into and continues out from the city of Davis, proper (which is about the same size as Santa Cruz). UCSC's campus doesn't seem to meet any sensical criteria for a "suburban" (ref: suburb) campus, so if you don't object, I'd like to change the designation to "rural."--Dynaflow 13:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think because of the population and it being a mile out from the city 'proper' doesn't make UCSC rural. I think rural would be more like a small town removed from populous that mainly consists of the college and some catering businesses and thats it. JoeSmack ^Talk 13:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've come up with a compromise. Whaddya think? :) --Dynaflow 13:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, describes it to the tee. Good thinking! JoeSmack ^Talk 22:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the "suburban/sylvan" description describes UCSC to a tee, but aren't we bordering just a little on original research? What other sources have described it as such? (Then again, I can proudly say our UCSC defies description.) szyslak (t, c) 22:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Almost any source relating to the topography of the campus (LRDPs, environmental impact reports, USGS data, etc.) describes the majority of its land as heavily forested, and "sylvan" is merely a synonym for that. I don't think I'd count a trip to the thesaurus as original research, and the "suburban" moniker is just something that the college guides have persisted in tacking on to their descriptions of UCSC over the years in a most unoriginal fashion. There's nothing original in either observation, so I think they should stand. --Dynaflow 23:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Even at the beginning, I framed the "original research" issue as extremely borderline. So yeah, it's pretty good the way it is, and should stand unless it's no longer supported by consensus. You did a great job with that solution! szyslak (t, c) 21:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As a sidenote, I really hope you didn't take what I was saying as a claim that you personally are engaging in OR. I didn't mean it that way at all. szyslak (t, c) 21:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

My response was just a little bit of semi-facetious ass-covering in case any Wikipuritans (new word coinage -- you saw it here first!) happen to drop by and see, to their horror, accusations of O.R. witchcraft, that ol' black magic. : ) Thanks for the kudos. --Dynaflow 22:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Revamped userbox

UCSCThis user attends or attended the
University of California,
Santa Cruz

It has been heavily prettified for your viewing enjoyment. The user-page code for the box is still: {{User ucsc}}

Add it today! :D Dynaflow 12:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed unencyclopedic "student traditions"

I have removed most of the portions of this article regarding "student traditions" for the time being. I'm all for a discussion of UCSC student traditions, but it must be rebuilt as sourced and encyclopedic. First, most of the "traditions" listed seem limited to the campus' hippie subculture. Second, things like smoking weed in abandoned buildings are more in the vein of "what me and my friends do", and are not true student traditions. The removed content does nothing but denigrate the overall quality and authority of this article. szyslak (t, c) 22:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

To clear up any potential confusion: I do NOT object to marijuana use or its discussion in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not censored, and censorship is not the goal of my edits. szyslak (t, c) 22:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It was totally wrong of you to take out any reference to 420 day. Whatever you happen to think of marijuana use, what goes on in Porter Meadow on the 20th of April is a venerable UCSC tradition and it ought to be part of the wiki article. --JB

If you support the inclusion of "420 day" in this article, could you please find reliable sources that describe this event? I went to UCSC, and was aware of "420 day". I remember it as being significant among some students, at least among pot smokers. However, my or your personal experience does not reliable sources make. It's not up to you or me to decide what is and is not a "venerable tradition". Without sources, discussing this matter in the article would amount to unverifiable original research.

If you can't find reliable sources and still feel this should be mentioned in the article, I suggest you go to Wikipedia talk:No original research and propose a policy change. szyslak (t, c) 00:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There you go--I've found a "reliable source" since the Sentinel finally got off its butt and printed an article.71.131.177.89 20:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)JB

Awesome! And you're right that UCSC is noted for its "marijuana culture". I figure it's also worth it to cite the Rolling Stone article that named UCSC as "the most stoned campus in America". RS archives pretty much everything, so I figure it's not too hard to find. szyslak (t, c) 21:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This is the first article I'm reviewing, but I've spent some time with the University project, I think I know what I'm look for here. After reading the article, I do have concerns, but not enough to not pass it.

Per Wikipedia:What is a good article?, this is well written. "Gently rolling hills" does sounds lofty and knowing the infobox, I'm not sure "Sylvan" is a proper entry, but I presume that's the best description. Geology is also a rather weak section, with too many paragraphs and too few references. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities#Structure, I see it follows to a T. Student media is the section that stands out, and this is the section that needs the most work. First, the list should be rewritten in paragraph form, and all external links should be removed. The distinction should be made between University sponsored papers, independent ones, and local ones, and what makes them student media. As for the athletics and traditions section, there is also an external link and the Porter Run bit should be referenced or removed. I would suggest finding an article from one of the school newspapers websites regarding it. Per WP:V, it is well referenced, though it make use of the "cite web" template when "cite news" would be more exact. I can say it's both broad and stable, and branches off where necessary. A short synopsis of List of University of California, Santa Cruz people would appropriate. The red links are a problem, either those articles should be written, or the links should be removed. The images are nice, but could have more description of what they are and why they're in the sections that they are.

Lastly, I would also remove the Points of interest and Trivia section. The point of interest should be under campus facilities. Per WP:TRIVIA, if it can't be integrated, it should be removed. Though I am a Pulp Fiction fan, it adds little to the overall topic, and certainly would jeopardize FA status. Good work, keep it up.--Patrick 16:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's take this sucker to FA status-level now

Things to do:

1. Do not let whomever keeps inserting the Trivia section continue to do so. Points of Interest should also be taken out and kept out unless someone can expand it into a decent sightseeing itinerary.
2. Flesh out the history section with stuff from the "middle years," such as the early work on chaos theory, the '70s-era serial-killer infestation, the 1989 earthquake, the End of the World parties (does anyone have a copy of Proctor Wayne's book to cite?), the switch from collaborative liberal-arts to hard-sciences emphasis, the gradual weakening of the colleges in favor of the divisions, and whatver else seems like a notable milestone in the history of the institution.
3. The campus medi publications with articles should have those articles condensed into capsules that can be used with the "main article" link template. All the others should get a sentence or two, tops.
4. A lot of the photos are where they are just because that's where they fit (a lot of that is due to my layout de-awkwarding), and we might want to take a new set of pictures specifically to illustrate particular aspects of the article (a picture of the women's rugby team for the athletic section, a picture of the Fish Rap or CHP "offices" for the media section, etc.
5. The Organization section needs work in defining exactly who runs what. If someone wants to abstract the University's organizational chart an put it into prose, and then maybe go over how the organization has developed over time, it would be great.
6. A notable UCSC alumni section might be kind of cool, but it will probably attract a lot of vanity edits and will likely be the hardest part of the article to keep stable and NPOV. Ideally, I think the link should be kept in a see-also link collection at the end of he article.
7. We don't need to worry about the "gently-rolling, forested hills" bit (it's a pretty accurate description of th local topograhpy and is euphonic besides) or the "sylvan" appellation (see discussion on that, above). The geology section does need to be referenced, though not necessarily culled.
8. The references for 420 and First Rain should be easy to find

If you can think of anything else you think needs to be done, list it below. Let's see if we can get this thing on the Main Page one of these months. --Dynaflow babble 20:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Great job with GA! Definitely fill out all red links - thats kind of a de facto FA standard. Make sure to follow these standards and formats. Catch all citationneeded tags too. Gets some sources on The order of colleges being founded, that should be easy enough. Clean up the EL section, it is kind of linkfarmy, read WP:EL and WP:NOT. Has this been peer reviewed yet? JoeSmack ^Talk 20:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. After this we can get into criteria 1a stuff for FA, and that'll be a tough! Woowee! :) JoeSmack ^Talk 20:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Unique student evalution system

The unsourced portion of the paragraph regarding the evaluation system implies that grades were unused until 1997. This is clearly untrue. This paper, written in 1970, states, "[E]xceptions to the pass-fail system are in nonintroductory undergraduate courses in biology, chemistry, mathematics and physics in which students may select the letter grade option." A 1996 article states, "[F]or most upper division courses, and for some lower division courses, students may supplement the narrative with a letter grade from the list A, B, C, or NP." This paragraph needs to be sourced and reevaluated to reflect the actual history, as well as the abandonment of narratives (see [1]). The system didn't suddenly change in 1997; it looks to me as though changes were gradual, on up to 2001. Calbaer 21:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject University of California

Several editors are organizing a WikiProject to better organize articles related to the University of California. A preliminary draft is available here. You are invited to participate in the discussion at Talk:University of California#Developing Wikiproject University of California. szyslak 21:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

First Rain article

Hi, everyone. I ran across an article someone started on the venerable First Rain tradition the other day, and it needs some help. One of its two citations was a Livejournal post, of all things. I added a ref to Wayne Hendrickson's ("Proctor Wayne's") book, but the thing still needs a lot more references and more fleshing out. If you have access to sources that can help the article pass WP:N and WP:V muster, bring them by and add them. (This means you, person bored out of your mind working at McHenry Special Collections on Saturday afternoon. Yes, you.) Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 06:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikitrust project

I'm trying to add a new section to the talk page, and am not sure this is the correct way to do it (this is first logged in edit :-). Wikipedia, as part of the Wikimedia Quality [2] project, has partnered with UCSC professor (providing both a cold snapshot of Wikipedia for testing and funding) Luca de Alfaro[3] to help improve and clearly indicate 'trustworthiness' of each word in each article. I feel that this is worth mentioning in the UCSC article, both because it is a cool project, but also if Wikipedia is funding research at UCSC, under common views on disclosure, it is a good idea to mention it. I will work on creating a section or blurb about this, but do not know when I will be able to fix something up. I will check back here to see what the community thinks before adding :-) IVIamp (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. It should fit in well under "research." Amerique^dialectics 05:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Grateful Dead Archive

I think there should be a section here about the donation of the Grateful Dead memorabilia to UCSC. Let me know what you think. See also Grateful Dead#Donation of archives to UCSC Jagun^Talk_Contribs 01:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

There already is a paragraph on the GD archive under the "Library" section. I'll put a subheading over it. Amerique^dialectics 02:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Endowment

The endowment is wrong, it is listed as $498,821,000, the actual (according to the given source) is 115,752,000. US World and News Report states that it is $114,437,000 http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/items/1321. The UCSC's total budget is 522.5 million (2007-2008)http://www.ucsc.edu/about/statistics.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.49.133 (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the hugely inflated endowment number ended up there (but hopefully I didn't do it when I revamped the infobox a year or two ago). The bizarre endowment figure has now been swapped out for the official UCOP number for 2008, per the source. Thanks for spotting that. --Dynaflow babble 02:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's where the endowment number was changed -- nearly a year ago -- by an otherwise-helpful anonymous editor. I'm somewhat gobsmacked that we didn't catch it until now. --Dynaflow babble 02:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Fiat Slug logo

While the "Fiat Slug" logo is better-looking and more fun than the actual UCSC logo, is it really appropriate to use it as the main image in the infobox? It's more than just an "unofficial" logo, it's a commercial product (the name of the clothing company escapes me at the moment - something West, if I'm not mistaken). Mind you, I'm not planning to change it, I just thought I'd bring it up. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems you are right: [4] Two students developed the logo and went into business for themselves as "Oxford West." I had thought the logo was owned by the student council... I think you are right and the logo would be more appropriate represented in this article as a thumbnail with a caption explaining how it is not owned by the students or the university, but by this company. According to the UCSC style guidelines, they use the main UC unofficial seal as their seal.[5] Amerique^dialectics 01:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That logo is property of the Regents (like everything else bearing the "UC brand") and is licensed from them by Oxford West to print on shirts and such. I would argue for keeping that logo where it is due to its pervasiveness on campus, tantamount to it being the "unofficial unofficial official logo;" because of its symbolic importance to UCSC and the campus's history; because the "official unofficial seal" already appears in the infobox as part of the footer; and, most importantly, because it conveys something interesting and unique about the campus without violating the MOS or deviating terribly far from the guideline for that field from {{Infobox University}}, which calls for a "university-related image." Though the guideline says the image should "preferably [be] the university's official seal or logo," the Fiat Slug logo's useage is such that it could, for all practical purposes, be considered the latter. --Dynaflow babble 11:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That explains it. Interesting arrangement. I'm ok with keeping it where it is, but some note should be made of it's ownership status somewhere in the article, probably in the mascot paragraph. Amerique^dialectics 17:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, especially considering that the "official" logo isn't really official. Thanks for considering it thoughtfully. Cheers, GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Also agreed for the above reasons. Worth noting yet worth keeping the old logo. JoeSmack ^Talk 22:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• So I replace this logo with the one from the university's identity guidelines (where the unofficial one doesn't even exist) and I'm reverted. This isn't the official seal or logo of the university. There's no reason for it to be at the top of the main infobox on this university. None. It doesn't matter how many t-shirts this gets printed on, how many book bags, how many banners. It's not the university's official logo. End of story. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the above consensus was for the opposite. Do you have different thoughts on the matter? JoeSmack ^Talk 16:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Didn't I just say that? Off to seek wider consensus... --Hammersoft (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the above was rather terse, I was hoping for further clarification. Regardless of if the university considers it official or not, that has no sway on Wikipedia. It is really up to us to decide. So, why do you think it should be included over the above reasons? 'It doesn't matter, its not official' - can you expand on that? JoeSmack ^Talk 18:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the slug logo doesn't belong at the top of the article. Of the logos provided at UCSC's Public Relations Office, I can see the USC unofficial seal as being the top graphic and the logotype graphic on the bottom of the infobox. The slug logo is more of a fanboi image and not appropriate to represent the university. Stick it in the student activities section if it really needs to be included. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

See my response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Using "unofficial" logos in university infoboxes. --Dynaflow babble 19:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to suggest a change/clarification regarding the Banana Slug Logo and its origin. Although the students, later of Oxford West developed the concept, the design itself was created by artist Chris Hodges while working for the college design and production firm LinGard & Associates, Inc. in Calhoun, GA in 1986. Because this firm is now defunct, I am trying to find another method of confirmation other than connoisseurship. However, the assertion: "It was developed by two students during the mascot controversy, who later incorporated as "Oxford West" and licensed their design from the Regents to produce clothing inspired by the university" is also not validated by citation. If anyone has a problem with this, let me know. MNicolou (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Research section needs role in Chaos theory

The section lacks material on dynamical systems work noted in The Eudaemonic Pie and James Gleick's Chaos book. 171.66.173.83 (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)