Wikipedia talk:WikiProject University of California

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject California (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject University of California (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject University of California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to University of California, its history, accomplishments and other topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
Shortcut:

Contents

Re: WP:UCAL redirect[edit]

I experimented with some others, but all the obvious ones seem to have been taken. Ameriquedialectics 01:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if we can steal WP:UC from Wikipedia:User categorisation, a project that's been inactive for at least a year, if not more. Per Special:Whatlinkshere/WP:UC, only 11 pages link to WP:UC. In case anyone actually uses the shortcut to get to the user categorization page, we could easily put a disambiguation notice on top, something like "WP:UC" redirects here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:User categorisation. szyslak 01:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Go for it. Just make sure to change the WP:UC link to the full "Wikipedia:User categorisation" for these pages, so no one gets confused. =) --Dynaflow babble 02:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed WP:UC to redirect here, and fixed some of the obvious redirect problems. the redirects in archive space or areas i couldn't make sense of i didn't mess with. Ameriquedialectics 02:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Just in case anyone still types "WP:UC" to get to Wikipedia:User categorisation, I added a dab notice, which includes other possible meanings of the abbreviation. szyslak 07:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

University of California discussion from Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals[edit]

Description 
WikiProject University of California is a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the University of California system.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

—# Amerique

  1. Szyslak
  2. Dynaflow
Comments

An early draft of the project page is at Wikipedia:WikiProject University of California. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kintetsubuffalo (talkcontribs) 06:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Just nominated University of California, Riverside for FAC[edit]

It is also the first article talk page to sport the UC project template. Feel free to review or help out as inclined. Ameriquedialectics 23:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so the FAC was delisted after only five days. User:Raul654 hasn't responded to requests for clarification as to why he halted it. I've requested assistance from the League of Copyeditors, but don't know if they will get to this article anytime soon. Anyway, my intention was, and still is, to get this article to FA, and this would go faster as part of a larger project of this group. As I see the various UC articles, UCR's is closest to meeting the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, followed by UCSC's. UCI's article has a lot of great content and prose but it hasn't gone through the WP:GA review process and there is a lot that would need to be done before it could pass criteria 1 (b). UCSC's article looks good but there is a lot more content that could go into it:[1]. Irvine also has more bibliographic resources:[2]. All the bibliographic stuff on UCR only covers the Citrus Experiment Station and so is mainly useless for its article.

So I propose collectively concentrating on UCR for now, getting that to FA, then migrating whatever comprehensive references could be used from that to the other article projects. SC's and I's articles could then be worked on simultaneously until either is ready to be nominated for FAC or GA, then we would concentrate on either article exclusively once it's at its respective review process. Ameriquedialectics 23:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather tired of working on the UCR article for the time being, but I found a trove of references for the UCSC article here: [3] FA drive? Ameriquedialectics 21:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been intending to expand the history section of the UCSC article for a while now, using the UC archives and possibly making a trip down to browse Special Collections at the McHenry Library, but I've been slammed with work. I anticipate having time to work on it in a few weeks. We've already gotten it to GA, and I'd love to see that article hit FA. After that, I'd like to propose concentrating on a GA -> FA drive for the top-level, University of California article. --Dynaflow babble 23:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No rush for free labor! But yeah, considering how newspapers tend to write about how new developments affect the UC as a whole, developing the main UC article would be easier than, say the UCR article, as there are far more comprehensive references to work with. The main UC article already is pretty good, if a bit too much information and too disorganized for my tastes; a lot of the sections such as "Admissions," and units within "Peripheral enterprises" could be forked off or discussed in other articles that are already there, particularly the national lab articles or other UC campus articles. GA for UC would be relatively easy, but a colossal effort would be required to get it through FA, in my opinion. (UCR is pretty much "built-out," at this point.) Ameriquedialectics 00:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I've gotta say UCSC is definitely the most interesting UC campus. Whoa doggie.Santa Cruz mourns one that didn't get away Ameriquedialectics 03:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Project tagging[edit]

I have begun the mighty task of tagging UC-related article with the {{WikiProject University of California}} template. I've already tagged every article the {{University of California}} navbox links to, along with every article that's directly in Category:University of California (but not the articles in the subcats). Here's roughly how many articles in each subcat need to be tagged. (I say "roughly", because a few are already tagged.)

I've moved the list to the main project page per discussion below szyslak 05:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't link to the alumni cats because it's been generally agreed that students and alumni are not part of this project. There are very few people, aside from athletes, who were mostly notable as UC students (for example, 1960s political activist Mario Savio). However, I did link to the categories of sports team players. Although I don't personally think everyone who played for a UC team should get a UC WikiProject tag, I figure (a) some of you might possibly disagree, and (b) perhaps we could just tag the most notable athletes.

I've assigned quality and importance ratings to the articles I've tagged, but if you run into an article you're not sure how to rate, you can leave it unrated for now, and someone will come along later to rate it. Most of the time, the rating and importance are obvious. And the ratings I assigned haven't been set in stone, so feel free to change them if you disagree. szyslak 12:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've tagged all lists of alumni and "people", but not lists that include only faculty. szyslak 05:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as this is a huge working list I propose moving it to project space, and leaving the athletics, alumni, faculty and various other "people" subcategories for either another project entirely or for a far later stage of this one, i.e. once the various institutional articles and the few important biographies of people critical to the UC's overall development are worked out, which at our current pace would take years. I agree that individual students and alums for the most part should not be a part of the project, (though "student life" and various alumni stats and support organizations would be) and I would go so far as to say that faculty who are not important to the UC's overall institutional development shouldn't be either, i.e. most faculty. (For the most part faculty, unless they are an administrator or some such, are more important for their contributions in their respective fields than for their associations with a university, anyway.) I personally have got little interest in working extensively in athletics articles, and this is where you're likely to encounter both the most adamant editors and the worst POV problems, so I'm willing to leave the various athletics subcategories to editors who mainly care about those aspects of their respective university articles, rather than make athletics a project of this one. Ameriquedialectics 17:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying we shouldn't tag athletics articles? I fully agree UC athletics is not one of our highest priorities as a project (it's certainly not one of my high priorities as an editor). However, I think what really matters is whether the articles are related to UC, not when or if this project will get around to working on them. When we tag an article, we're just saying "This has some significant relation to UC", not "This is something we as project members consider a high priority". So I say we just tag the athletics articles, whether or not any of us do anything about them. But I don't support tagging the articles for individual athletes, at least in most cases. Coaches, on the other hand, probably are within our scope, since they're so tied to their schools in the public's perception. (I've even listed John Wooden as an example of a "High"-importance article on the assessment page, though I'm open to choosing a different article).
On the subject of biographies, I agree that most faculty members, like students/alumni, are outside our scope and maybe shouldn't be tagged. For example, a notable anthropology professor at Berkeley is notable because of his anthropology work, not because he works at Berkeley. I've tagged a few such articles, all of which are (perhaps incorrectly) in the cats for the main UC articles. But I might just take them off, and the rest of you can feel free to do so too. Of course, lists of faculty (and even alumni) are well within our scope. And well they should be, because many of these lists need help. szyslak 01:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd rather leave the sports aspect to people working on the individual university articles than make it an agenda of a systemwide project. I mean, Cal football only represents the university at Berkeley, likewise UCLA etc. That's my opinion. Ameriquedialectics 04:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Not that anything is "incorrect." Everything is a matter of opinion, you know. But even John Wooden is only affiliated with UCLA. gotta go Ameriquedialectics 04:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course! We're a new project, and not everything is settled yet. We'll come to a firm decision on such matters in due time. For now, I don't plan on tagging athletics articles, and none are tagged yet, except for a few templates that were tagged some time ago. On the separate issue of faculty bios, I went back and untagged the few I'd already tagged via TW rollback. szyslak 05:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I did some tagging of UC Berkeley faculty and athletes today. I typically like WikiProjects to be comprehensive, meaning that I include everything that has at has least a bit of relation to the WikiProject. I am willing to discuss the scope of the project if you guys disagree with this tagging. It seems like this WikiProject is inactive, so I will wait a bit before tagging faculty and athletes at other UC campuses. Cheers. Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab 07:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. This will make Category:WikiProject University of California articles and its subcategories big, but not so big I think that you can't pick out the other articles from among all the people. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
That's fine. I've been busy in rl but will get back to these articles as soon as i can. Ameriquedialectics 18:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Tagging category pages[edit]

When tagging non article pages please take the time to learn how to do it correctly. Category pages should be tagged using the following tag

{{WikiProject University of California|class=Cat|importance=NA}}

Dbiel (Talk) 18:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This was my fault. I have fixed the categories that I had previously mis-tagged, and will make a note of the proper format so that I won't make the same mistake again. --UC Bill (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The Preuss School UCSD[edit]

You guys want to review this article currently at FAC? Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Preuss School UCSD. Ameriquedialectics 18:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:UCLA Bruins Logo.png usage[edit]

I would like to inform this project that the image in this title does not conform with Wikipedia:NFCC#10c: (c) The name of each article (a link to the articles is recommended as well) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use. Rather than remove each use which does not have a rationale right now, I'm giving advance notice that I will do so in the near future. I have put this page on my watchlist, so feel free to reply here if you'd like.--Rockfang (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha. Issues like this are exactly why I didn't want this project to focus on athletic articles. that logo only has one rationale and links to 21 different articles. there is no way I'm writing 20 separate fair use rationales. Feel free to remove all out of policy appearances, anyone who wants to put the image back up can bother with justifying it. Ameriquedialectics 21:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Be sure to get these too: Image:StanfordCardinal.png. Ameriquedialectics 21:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Updated with fur templates. Group29 (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Good Lord, that might just cause BetacommandBot to explode. Seriously though, as much as I think the main drivers of the WP:FUC policy page have gone overboard in recent months in making it as difficult as possible to use non-free media, I just have to ask: Are we justified in using UCLA's trademarked athletic logo that promiscuously? I'm sure the article on the band would be much better illustrated with a picture of ... well ... the band. And then there's this, which illustrates an athletic rivalry by setting a couple thumbnails of trademarked logos together, rather than a picture someone -- somewhere -- has to have of the schools' teams actually playing each other.
Wikipedia:WikiProject College Basketball seems to be working on creating articles on each and every year's UCLA men's basketball team (dating back to the mid-'90s as of now), but is it necessary to put the UCLA logo on every one of them? That's half the current usage of the image. Wouldn't team photos or pictures of those teams at play be more appropriate, and failing that, maybe one of those "Do you have a photo of x?" templates to hold the image's place in the infoboxes? This is out of control on college articles in general, but that UCLA logo's usage is particularly egregious. --Dynaflow babble 05:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
[UPDATE:] Thanks to Flickr, I found a CC-licensed pic of the band, so that article is now un-FUC'ed. Let's see what else I can find... --Dynaflow babble 06:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
UCLA-USC rivalry is now clear of FUCs as well. --Dynaflow babble 07:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Victory Bell (USC-UCLA), cleared. --Dynaflow babble 08:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Lexus Gauntlet is clear. --Dynaflow babble 09:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Way to go on adding the relevant pictures! I am sure that Betacommandbot is made of sterner stuff. See the question on your talk page about the rationale. I read 3c about minimal use. They have danced around the issue and should settle on one use and only on the subject itself. Otherwise we have this kind of problem where "It is OK here, but not here". Group29 (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[The following two posts have been pasted in from User talk:Dynaflow]:

Dynaflow, thanks for uploading the pictures to replace the UCLA and USC athletics logos. I read through Wikipedia:Logos more than once in the past few months. Would you please explain how you interpreted where the UCLA and USC logos are not fair use when used to represent the subjects in question: Victory Bell, UCLA-USC rivalry and Lexus Gauntlet. Thanks, Group29 (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going by the overarching Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy and the guidelines at Wikipedia:Non-free content, rather than just the Wikipedia:Logos guideline. In a nutshell, it is not that the use of the logos wasn't fair-use (by domestic copyright law) at the articles in which they were placed, per se, but that the way they were being used was at odds with how the Community has decided it wants to work with non-free content vis-a-vis free content.
Specifically:
    • WP:FUC #3 calls for keeping use of non-free media to an absolute minimum: "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." If it's not absolutely necessary to include a piece of non-free media, then it shouldn't be included.
    • WP:FUC #8 says that, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." For example, Image:UCLA Bruins Logo.png's use at UCLA Bruins would be acceptable because it shows the official logo of the entity which is the article's primary focus, and it is definitely germane, encyclopedic content when included there. The article would be poorer for the loss of it. On the other hand, the primary focus of the Lexus Gauntlet article is the competition over this thing. The use of Image:UCLA Bruins Logo.png (as well as Cal's, USC's, and Stanford's logos) as visual markers in subsections of that article was not necessary to the encyclopedic mission of the article, and little, if anything, would be lost by replacing them with something free -- which brings us to...
    • WP:FUC #1, which says, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one that has the same effect, or adequately conveyed by text without using a picture at all?" If the answer is yes, the image probably does not meet this criterion.)" The answer was "yes" for the images I took out and replaced with free content. --Dynaflow babble 18:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

UC portal?[edit]

In line with developing the main UC article to GA, would it feasible to develop a UC portal? My coding skills are not that good, so someone else should probably initiate this, but here are some models we could use: Portal:University, Portal:University of Texas at Austin. A list of FA portals here: Wikipedia:Featured_portals. Ameriquedialectics 21:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Source of each university's endowment[edit]

I looked up a source used to cite the endowment of UC Riverside after an anonymous IP user asked a question about it. The question was answered, but from it, I found that each of the campus article do not use the same source to cite their endowment.

UC Irvine for example has the reported endowment of $189.4 million from the Annual Endowment Report of University of California (AERUC), but UC Irvine's press release reports it to be at $230 million. To make the matter even more cluster-numbered, I remember U.S. News and Report stating the university had $800 million.

UC Berkeley had the reported endowment of $2.4 billion from the AERUC, yet U.S. News and Reports states it to be over $3 billion.

Granted, the AERUC's report is somewhat outdated by a year, but it's probably the only authoritative source (against U.S. News and Reports) and puts all campuses under the same standards (unlike individual news releases by each campus). So should we use AERUC as our universal source despite it being outdated by one year or use the latest that are found from elsewhere?

--BirdKr (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


I would be for it, but I am also ok with using more recent campus press releases for this information, until the AERUC is updated again. I don't know what is holding the UCOP back from publishing an updated endowment report, but I would think the more recent endowment information provided by individual UC campuses is trustworthy. Just as long as the ref for this isn't US News, I'm ok with listing whatever figure that is supported by a UC source. Ameriquedialectics 17:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll be revising the UC articles that are using the U.S. News Report to cite the endowment numbers in a few hours. --BirdKr (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
It's done. I'll check up on UCOP often for the latest version--BirdKr (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
. An encyclopedia article should contain only information from authoritative sources. For UC endowment figures this would mean the AERUC or a press release from the University of California or a specific UC Campus, with preference given to the latest published reliable source. I agree with Amerique's suspicion that some media sources are lumping assets into their endowment figures that are not typically considered part of the endowment (see Talk:University_of_California,_San_Diego#Endowment and Talk:University_of_California,_Davis#Endowment for more discussion of this). I view the publication of larger numbers from non-authoritative sources (typically seen from anonymous IP posters) as a form of well-intended boosterism, but boosterism nonetheless.-- Vantelimus (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Renomed UCR for FAC[edit]

Those of you who were not involved in the last FAC please review this article. Ameriquedialectics 19:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Someone nominated 2 UC student orgs for deletion[edit]

Ameriquedialectics 21:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes![edit]

[4]. The GimmeBot hasn't gotten to it yet, but it looks like University of California, Riverside just became WP:UC's first featured article. szyslak (t) 00:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Drinks are on me. Ameriquedialectics 02:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Celebrate!
Once we're finished with Amerique's fine college wines, I'll bring over a few more drinks. Now let's have ourselves a California college party! Next stop, Santa Cruz! szyslak (t) 04:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work!Vantelimus (talk) 05:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

UC Template image[edit]

Hello all,

Any concerns or suggestions re: the image that goes in the UC template box?


Dynaflow expresses concern over the Fiat Lux detail here: User_talk:Amerique#UC_template. I've copied my response to his talk page and open the matter up for further discussion here. Ameriquedialectics 21:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The map image is great on the UC page because it is big enough to see the data. It doesn't work well for the UC Template box. A straight image of california without the campus locations would be better if you are going to change it back. I like the "Fiat Lux" star above Sather Gate image, but then again, I'm partial to the Berkeley campus and my preference may be due to that bias. The only problem with the "Fiat Lux" star is that it might not be emblematic enough for people who aren't familiar with the university system motto. Is there a copyright/trademark problem with using the University seal in the template box? Vantelimus (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. --Dynaflow babble 23:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I posted this over at Template_talk:University_of_California, but I figured it's more relevant here. The university seal was adopted in 1910[5], and is thus in the public domain. See WP:Public_domain. It is not subject to copyright, so we don't have to worry about fair use. Though it's still a trademark. See WP:Logos. I think, correct me if I'm wrong, we can use the seal in the template. Nguyenmdk (talk) 08:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I can tell, the seal still being in active use as a trademark means that it's not "free" and thus Wikipedia:Non-free content guidelines apply. I personally don't care, I even think it's a great idea, but putting the seal in the template would reproduce it all over the UC articles and thus violate the minimal use provisions of Wikipedia policy. I wouldn't be the one to revert for doing that, but plenty of other people will. Ameriquedialectics 14:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I was think the same rationale that applies to Notre_dame_coat_of_arms.png applies here. That image was incorporated into Template:University_of_Notre_Dame. I think trademarks that aren't copyrighted are not WP:NFC, those guidelines seem to only deal with copyrighted works. Can anyone elaborate? Also, if this my theory is correct it would seem that there are a lot of images throughout wikipedia have their licensing info wrong. eg. Image:Harvard_shield-University.png, Image:Official_Yale_Shield.png (I'm betting these are pretty old seeing as how those universities are over 300 years old)Nguyenmdk (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I find that argument persuasive re: Notre Dame's coat of arms, also per the further rationales on that image's talk page. There tends to be an atmosphere of "more heat than light" in discussions on WP surrounding free/fair use distinctions... not everyone is operating on the same "page," as it were. If you'd like to upload a clean version of the "unofficial seal" with a transparent background for use in the template I'd support using that for both the UC and UC wikiproject templates, but I'd expect it to draw controversy. Best, Ameriquedialectics 02:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've thought about this and looked a few things up. Characterizing the UC seal as being in the public domain simply because its copyright has expired is incorrect. Something in the public domain may be used for any purpose by anyone. Trademarked intellectual property confers certain proprietary rights upon its owners, including the right to restrict its use in a number of circumstances. It cannot be used by just anyone for just anything. This makes trademarked content and public-domain content mutually exclusive; trademarks (which never expire as long as they continue to be used and defended) are non-free content by definition, regardless of copyright status.
Treatment of trademarks with lapsed copyrights as "free content" in Wikipedia will be frowned upon by the same logic that makes media licensed under the Creative Commons Noncommercial license unsuitable for general use here: because users are barred from using it in a certain range of possibly-desired applications, it is not truly free/libre content. The spirit of WP:NFCC, as it currently stands, would therefore call for us to treat the UC seal like any other non-free media, including the requirements that its use be kept to an absolute minimum and that it should appear only in the main article space -- both of which would preclude its use in template-space. </wet-blanketism> --Dynaflow babble 07:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested further clarification here. Ameriquedialectics 18:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Cory Hall[edit]

Cory Hall has been prod'd, encase you guys missed it. --Falcorian (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any good refs for it. Why not just fold all that to University of California, Berkeley Campus Architecture? Ameriquedialectics 20:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute[edit]

Anonymous editors have been changing the wording of Berkeley Oak Grove Protest, and article in your project's scope, and have recently added a NPOV template. I'd like opinions from other editors, so please stop on by and leave a comment here! Thanks! --Falcorian (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The dispute continues... And I'm starting to get worn out with all the insanity. This IP shouldn't be left to run roughshod over the article with a seeming disregard for WP:RS and WP:NPOV, but I'm losing the will to deal with it. I don't know how to deal with someone who thinks that citing a UC website for "the facility will be used for more than just the football team" is biased, or that saying there are 26 oak trees (cited from one article, and attributable to at least 3 more) is NPOV. It's just... a level of doublethink I can't keep up with. Any help for this exasperated member would be appreciated. Thanks. :-/ --Falcorian (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
You're doing a great job. Dealing with POV pushers can be tedious. Generally, the best strategy for editors is to stay cool and give them enough rope to hang themselves so there is incontrovertable evidence for administrators to act on when called. There is already an admin working the article, anyone reading the talk page comments should be able to easily see who is pushing a POV and who is acting in accord with WP policy. Ameriquedialectics 15:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the assistance. He seems to be civil to you at least, so I'll take a few days off and let you keep an eye on it. Thanks again! --Falcorian (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme[edit]

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Priority rating disupute[edit]

There's a dispute over at Talk:University_of_California_Museum_of_Paleontology regarding the priority/importance rating for that article. My understanding is that the priority/importance ratings are specific to this particular project, in which case only the articles for the individual UC campuses (and the system as a whole) really qualify as "Top" priority. I've changed the text of the assessment page to reflect this. If I'm mistaken in this understanding, or if I'm off-base with my opinion regarding which articles are of "Top" priority even for this project, please feel free to offer your alternate opinion so we can sort this out. --UC_Bill (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Despite being located on the UC Berkeley campus, the museum is actually a state-wide institution and thus probably deserves a "Top" priority ranking. I've added some material to the article and will be looking over some of the other museums and institutions to see which are also state-wide or system-wide. --UC_Bill (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for University of California[edit]

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

New California-related FAC[edit]

Hi there! Just wanted to let you know that 2003 Insight Bowl, a college football game featuring the University of California, has been nominated as a featured article candidate. If you've got a moment, I'd appreciate you heading on over to the review page to leave comments, critiques, or support in regards to the nomination. Any items about Cal football especially would be appreciated. Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC for WP:BOOSTER[edit]

There is a request for comment about whether or not WP:BOOSTER documents a standard consensus and good practice that all editors and school/college/university articles should follow as an official policy or guideline. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Students and Workers for the Liberation of UCLA Primates[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that your wikiproject may have an interest in, Students and Workers for the Liberation of UCLA Primates, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Students and Workers for the Liberation of UCLA Primates. Thank you. Rockpocket 23:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested articles: UC Natural Reserve System[edit]

The University of California Natural Reserve System has 29 Natural Reserves (currently red links) awaiting creation. I'm copying this request to the California project as well. Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

College Fight Songs[edit]

There is a thread on the administrators' noticeboard which may concern editors involved in this WikiProject and may affect the articles The California Indian Song, Sons of California, Big C (fight song), and Sons of Westwood. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Lyrics. CrazyPaco (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

UCR on Main Page[edit]

In case you haven't seen the Main Page featured article for yesterday, it just happened to be University of California, Riverside. I kind of missed it cause I didn't have proper Internet access yesterday. Here's the Main Page blurb. We should all be proud of our project's first Main Page FA! szyslak (t) 18:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

i noticed that. There were close to 17K page hits on the article yesterday, from a daily average of between 200-300, according to:
http://stats.grok.se/en/200902/University_of_California%2C_Riverside
I have screen caps of the main page if anyone wants to see, i've uploaded them to picassa here:
http://picasaweb.google.com/wikiamerique/UCRFeaturedOnWikipediaMainPage02212009?feat=directlink
On to UCSC! Ameriquedialectics 19:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group[edit]

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts[edit]

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:48, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Converting to task force of WikiProject California[edit]

Hi all, after a recent conversion to using the project meta banner, articles with the WP UC talk page template are still in Category:Unassessed California articles despite having an assessment in the WP California banner (example: Angela P. Harris, Ben Bagdikian). Also this and several other California related projects have limited activity and membership. I was thinking it might be easier to maintain and get involvement in this and various other projects if they were merged into task forces of WikiProject California, at least by converting the talk page banner to task forces of WP CAL. Would anyone object to converting {{WikiProject University of California}} to a usage of {{WikiProject California}}, or otherwise have any objections, questions, etc.? -Optigan13 (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a WikiProject California task force on all higher education institutions in the state could be useful, that I would participate in, but that the various individual university WikiProjects are also potentially useful for participants who just want to focus on articles pertaining to those particular universitites. Ameriquedialectics 16:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
So the task force would include the UC system, CSUs, and the private schools (USF, etc.)? Any idea on what to call it?-Optigan13 (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
How about "WikiProject Universities and colleges in California"? See below. szyslak (t) 21:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) If we must convert this project to a task force, I think it would be more logical under WP:WikiProject Universities. UC is defined more by being a university than by its location in California. Currently, WP:UNI doesn't seem to use task forces (see WP:UNI#Related WikiProjects). FWIW, there is a separate WP:WikiProject California State University, and I wouldn't object to a merger between the two projects, whether as a subproject or task force. Such a project could also include private universities and community colleges, which are now covered only by umbrella projects. And yes, this project has slowed down in the past few months, but I have a little more free time these days and I was planning to invest some more time in this project. szyslak (t) 21:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been occupied elsewhere, also. (But, this project had an article on the main page, what has WP California done lately?) Still, while I'd support the development of a WP California task force on (broadly defined) higher education issues in the state, I wouldn't support merging these projects. Redundancy can be a good thing. Ameriquedialectics 22:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
That was just an idea. Just to make it clear, I oppose taskforcing this project, at least under WP:CAL. It's still useful, still relevant ... and yes, still active, if not obviously so. A WP:UNI task force would make sense under a reorganization of WP:UNI, which currently has no task forces. Going back to WP:CAL, I do support the mergers of the Southern California and Santa Barbara projects, which were dead for all intents and purposes. szyslak (t) 06:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, there was also no real-world institutional framework for SoCal. Conceivably, a California higher education task force could handle Prop 209/Affirmative action and various state funding and budget/cost-cutting initiatives that individual university projects wouldn't ordinarily address, on top of education issues that don't have an active or dedicated wiki-project attached. Ameriquedialectics 18:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
There's no need to convert to a task force at all if you would rather just keep the separation the way it is. I'm just trying to assess what's going on with the various California WikiProjects to see which ones are alive. WikiProject California hasn't produced an FA for some time as far as I can tell, but pure FA/FL output isn't the only concern. There's also WP:FAR, WP:GAR, and other reassessments, sometimes with the main author(s) gone/burnt out (see the Bay Bridge's FAR). On top of that you have the breadth of all the other articles in the project's scope to keep an eye on, and all kinds of other maintenance work. But redundancy will totally work, since if something comes up (like Prop 209) hopefully both CAL and UNI would respond, or at least one of them. I'm more concerned about someone wasting their time trying to get help from, or joining a dead WikiProject. That's why I'm going through the various Cal projects to try and salvage something if possible, or if it's all dead than to mark it as such and move on, so others don't put a lot of effort into the same.
With the changes to both {{WikiProject California}} and {{WikiProject University of California}}, I think now would be a good time to try to assess the articles (WP:PHYSICS recently got all of them), the various project activity levels, and from there get back into a maintenance mode with keeping track of new and developed articles, and at the same time keep up article development (new GAs/FAs, etc.), and recruiting new project members as some inevitably leave. This doesn't necessarily mean merging the projects, but I do have a few requests.
  • If this is ok, would you prefer to take the higher or lower of any other projects' assessments if there are different levels on an article page?
  • Add WP:CAL to your watchlist and respond and help out if you have the time and are inclined. I'll try to return the favor.
Thanks for all the feedback so far. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindenting) Personally, speaking from someone who used to edit in both WikiProjects, that TF-ing this WP is somewhat unnecessary because the WikiProject itself is currently subject to WP:UNI's article guidelines, formats, editing, and rating. You're essentially breaking off something that clearly was supposed to be in WP:UNI's "jurisdiction" and handing it to other people. Now granted WP:CAL may have more active members, but it doesn't call for the switching and downgrading of the entire WikiProject already established. You could frequently ask the Cali Wikiproject to join in the WP:UNI articles associated with CA universities and colleges, but taking it off of WP:UNI completely just isn't sound. Sorry. - Jameson L. Tai talkguestbookcontribs 08:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Any responses to my requests directly before your reply? The general consensus is to leave this project primarily under WP UNI, which is just fine. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Endowment discussion at UCSF[edit]

There has been an interesting discussion regarding UC endowment balances at Talk:University of California, San Francisco. In particular, the different amounts reported to NACUBO and the amount, which includes non-endowment amounts, reported by the UC Office of the Treasurer of the Regents. Only three of us have been discussing the issue, so more feedback from editors is welcome. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

UCSD GA drive[edit]

Talk:University_of_California,_San_Diego/GA2 Somebody nomed UCSD for GA today, please assist if you have time. Ameriquedialectics 23:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Universities COTM Nomination[edit]

Hello WikiProject University of California. I just wanted to let you all know that a university handled by your WikiProject, University of California, San Diego, has been renominated for next month's WikiProject Universities Collaboration of the Month. If you'd like to take advantage of this opportunity, be sure to vote for the university. While you're there, consider helping improve one of our current Collaborations of the Month.

Happy editing! -Mabeenot (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement[edit]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of University of California, Santa Cruz[edit]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:University of California, Santa Cruz/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sloan Center for Internet Retailing[edit]

Should the Sloan Center for Internet Retailing page by deleted? It's just a blurb and the topic rates as low importance. I should it be. Others?

Donselma (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd support a merge and redirect to A. Gary Anderson Graduate School of Management. Ameriquedialectics 21:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If no one has any objectives to Amerique's idea, I'm going to attempt to merge them. I think that's a pretty good idea. 139.182.188.166 (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A. Gary Anderson School of Management[edit]

Should section describing business schools dean be moved to a different article or scrapped? I already deleted a portion which was not verifiable, but I wanted to get the community's consensus before I did anymore.

Donselma (talk) 05:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, I added more history to the history section of the article. Let me know how it looks. I got the information from a reputable source. I think I forgot to add the citation so I need to go back and do that. I have some concerns that one of the editors there has a COI. In September, I added information about a lawsuit the school had with proper citation and deleted information that was not verifiable. In January, an editor using the handle Drdavidstewart removed all unfavorable content regardless of whether it was verifiable and added a section called "Points of Distinction" that had no citations. Yesterday, I left any he put that was cited but deleted the rest and added back a section called "Controversy." My personal feeling was that it violated the NPOV; I found the article to read more like a plug for the school than an encyclopedic article. My concern also stems from the fact that Dr. David Stewart is the dean of the school. I have no idea whether it's an impersonator or actually the school dean; regardless, the "whitewashing" leaves me a little concerned. Donselma (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know the history of AGSM prior to 1993 when it became AGSM? And does anyone know a source that could verify that?

Donselma (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed the controversy section per WP:NOTABILITY and Wikipedia:No original research as Khoury's case was "unsubstantiated" & forum posts don't qualify as WP:RS. Thanks for your work, though. Best, Ameriquedialectics 21:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You're well-established here, Amerique, so I want to tread lightly as you no doubt understand the ethos better than I. Original research? Sorry, must be misunderstanding something. I thought that applied more to academic matters and historical revisionism. The Khoury case is well documented and can be found in any legal reporter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donselma (talkcontribs) 03:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Any one find any verifiable sources yet for documented the school's history from 70 yo 93. Donselma (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone think the portion of the article about Dean Stewart having held various administrative positions might be extraneous? How does one determine if something's extraneous and when should someone apply it? Donselma (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Amerique. Can you explain the notability issue with the Khoury case? I'm not seeing anything in the Notability guidelines that would preclude it from the article:

<<The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.>>

<<The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article on Wikipedia and do not govern article content. The question of content coverage within a given page is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.>> 139.182.188.166 (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

University of California articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release[edit]

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the University of California articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

University of California Rally Committee[edit]

I just noticed that this page was deleted under the radar back in March!! I personally think that there should definitely be a UCRC article and will create one within the next few weeks. If there is anyone who wants to help me out, it would be greatly appreciated. --CASportsFan (talk) 07:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Image deletion discussion[edit]

Relevant deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_December_29#File:California.png.--GrapedApe (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Inactive?[edit]

This project seems inactive, but i have been adding the project template to talk pages. I could ask if articles in this project shouldnt simply be in the California project and the Universities project, if not active for a while.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we can revive it! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 20:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I still watchlist this, for one. So if there are pages in need of attention, I think writing about them in this talk page may help. That seems to be the main activity of the other WikiProjects I'm involved in. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on consolidating inactive and semi-active university WikiProjects[edit]

This project may be affected by a proposed consolidation of inactive and semi-active WikiProjects covering universities. The proposed consolidation is being discussed on the talk page of WikiProject Universities. We are seeking feedback from the projects that may be impacted before we decide on a course of action. Please drop by to participate in the discussion. Thanks! –Mabeenot (talk) 06:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Poor state of Mathematical Sciences Research Institute[edit]

Can anyone explain me why is such an important article in such a poor state. Are there no "Secondary" sources for this article? Solomon7968 (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Linda Katehi: Work[edit]

Hello, I am an employee of UC Davis, here on the college's behalf. I left a message on the [[Linda Katehi] discussion page earlier this week about improving the part of the article titled Work, but received no response. After looking at the discussion page for UC Davis I came across this Wikiproject and thought maybe someone here would be interested.

As an employee of the college, I realize I should not make any edits to Linda Katehi's page myself. Can any editors here look over the material I've put together? I’ve rewritten the Work section of the article, so that it includes missing footnotes and some minor edits where I could not find footnotes. You can see what I've put together here on the discussion page.

Thank you for looking at this, LindaF UC Davis (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

College basketball navigation templates[edit]

Please join the discussion at the College Basketball Wikiproject for forming a consensus on the creation of a basic navigation template for college basketball teams. CrazyPaco (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

UCSC template: Keep or remove Shakespeare Santa Cruz?[edit]

I started a discussion here as to whether or not to keep the link to the defunct but then reborn Shakespeare Santa Cruz link within the {{University of California, Santa Cruz}} template. It is no longer an official part of the university. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 20:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject University of California at Wikimania 2014[edit]

Project Leaflet WikiProject Medicine back and front v1.png

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)