Talk:University of California, Santa Barbara

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This whole section was removed. Some of the other UC sites have humor sections, why not UCSB?

In this encyclopedia we are trying to produce a professional product, and lightbulb jokes -- ugh. --fpo 22:29, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Are you saying that there's no humor in being professional? I disagree. Humorist is a profession in itself - put the lightbulb jokes back in, this is exactly what is missing from Wikipedia, which is increasingly monotonous in tone and exceedingly dry. Where in the five pillars does it say "be professional"? It says, instead. BE BOLD.--Levalley (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

UCSB Memes

Near the beginning of 2012, the UCSB Meme page was added to Facebook. These memes include a lot of UCSB inside jokes, traditions, and many other UCSB/IV life references. (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Add info on new Ocean Sciences and Education Building[edit]

I would like to add information about the new Ocean Science and Education building that is currently being built on campus. Should it put under the campus section or the layout? Or another section altogether? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melsousou (talkcontribs) 22:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest at the bottom of the campus section. Kiki 233 (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Now that the information is in the article, I feel it doesn't really fit in. I would suggest trying to restart the UCSB campus article that I created (was deleted) and put the information there. Anyone else agree?. Kiki 233 (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Black Student Union[edit]

I wanted to add a section to the free student organization section. I wanted to talk a mainly about the black student union at ucsb, the event they through, and how they began. Does this sound like a good place to add it? (username: T.T.Tidwell) —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, August 19, 2012


NACUBO is a very useful source because it standardizes endowment data, but I believe it should only be the "official" source for private colleges and universities and should be used with caution for public universities. In the case of the University of California system, NACUBO seems to report only the endowments managed by the UC schools' Foundations, and does not include the endowments managed on behalf of the UC schools by the UC Regents (see p.4 of for details). Therefore, I believe the UC endowment data reported by the UC Treasurer's Office is relevant and should be shown in Wikipedia articles for UC schools instead of NACUBO's.Contributor321 (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Mireille Miller-Young controversy[edit]

An editor recently added information[ to this article about an incident involving a UCSB faculty member, Mireille Miller-Young. It was a good-faith addition but I [,_Santa_Barbara&diff=next&oldid=601893699 reverted it on the grounds that the information isn't germane to this topic but is instead about the individual. The other editor has reverted my revert but instead of continuing the edit war that he or she begun I think it's best see what others think. ElKevbo (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

One reversion, with clear explanation of reason for reversion, does not seem to constitute an edit war. I also added response of UCSB.
With respect to relevance, this alleged crime occurred on UCSB campus and was allegedly committed by a UCSB professor. This controversial incident has received nationwide news coverage. Perhaps addition of public statements from Michael D. Young, UCSB's Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs, which has also received nationwide (and international) news coverage regarding free speech in aftermath of this campus incident could also be included, if there's concern the current entry doesn't fully cover UCSB enough.
--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Deleted statements Miller-Young made to police (because more relevant to her personally than to UCSB campus incident). Also, added brief statement from UCSB Vice Chancellor Young. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Isla Vista Mass Murder[edit]

Wanted to get a general consensus, should a section for the College Town/Isla Vista Mass Murder lead to a brief section here on the UCSB article since it was across the street from campus, and most of the victims were UCSB students?

This is obviously still a developing story, so information will be changed as becomes available.--Hoteljargon (talk) 06:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

A brief sentence at the end of the history section would be appropriate, with a link to an article about the shooting itself. Do we have one yet? ―cobaltcigs 09:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight on one controversy - proposed solution[edit]

This article has a "Controversies" section with several detailed sentences about the Miller-Young incident in 2014. WP:CSECTION says "sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism" and "Sections or article titles should generally not include the word 'controversies'."

This article shouldn't have a standalone "Controversies" section; controversies should be discussed in context in the "History" section if they're important to the history of the university. Looking at the current "History" section, it's very brief - for example, there are only two sentences about the May 2014 IV killings, which is very important in the history of UCSB, and it doesn't mention the 2001 IV killings, which are also important to its history. There is a longer article at History of the University of California, Santa Barbara with more room for detail. I propose that we should move discussion of the Miller-Young controversy to that history article and consider reducing it there. I can do that myself, but it's a somewhat sensitive subject so I'm putting it up for discussion first. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with your assessment and proposal. The "controversy" is part of the history and should thus be included in it. Furthermore, there should be lines/mentions for other events, such as the 2014 Isla Vista killings, 2001 Isla Vista killings, and this Miller-Young incident as brief mentions within the history also, then branch off to their respective articles where applicable. If they've got entire articles written about them, no need to double a ton of the information up here, but I certainly see it fit to make mention of the incident(s) then link to corresponding other page(s) for further info. GauchoDude (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on University of California, Santa Barbara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Administrative Staff Number is Incorrect[edit]

The sidebar shows the number of "administrative staff" as 1,102. That is incorrect, and the way to see it is simply to follow the link that supposedly documents the figure. That reference goes to, which shows that 1,102 is the number of faculty. The administrative staff would be sum of 3,679 (Academic Staff) and 7,056 (Non-Academic Staff). Of course, those numbers are "head count" as opposed to "FTE" (full-time equivalent). Head count, counts each individual once, whether they are employed full-time, or at 25% time. FTE counts a 25% as 25%, etc.

I didn't make the change, because I'm not familiar with the template format, and I didn't want to screw things up. I figured better to note the problem here and let someone more familiar with the details figure out how to make the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting an error. The number in the infobox is correct, but the parameter should be 'Academic staff', which matches the reference cited. I've made the change and also moved your post to the bottom of this talk page where new post should be added (by clicking on the 'Add new section' button). Thanks again for catching this. — Neonorange (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)