Talk:University of California, Santa Cruz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article University of California, Santa Cruz has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 9, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
February 21, 2010 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject California (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Universities (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject University of California (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
This page is within the scope of the UC Santa Cruz task force. New members are always welcome!
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for University of California, Santa Cruz:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Article requests : Pics of the residential colleges that give some impression of their natural setting requested. Crown College, Kresege College, and College 10 particularly needed.
  • Cleanup : "Student media:" render into prose.
  • Copyedit : everything.
  • Expand : Academics: mention any unusual programs or arrangements such as "community studies," "feminist studies," game design & the 3/2 engineering program with Berkeley
  • NPOV : Fact-check anything that has to do with the Long Range Development Plan (UCSC)
  • Verify : Campus acreage, elevation measures.

[edit]

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: [1] 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.[2] Ameriquedialectics 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. Ameriquedialectics 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)

Grateful Dead Archive[edit]

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 JagunTalkContribs 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. Ameriquedialectics 02:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Endowment[edit]

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)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:University of California, Santa Cruz/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Generally good except for Enrollment and retention: In 2008, UCSC offered admission to a record number of 19,138 new undergraduate students out of 25,746 applications for the Fall term, representing an increase in selectivity to 74.3 percent from 82.8 percent admitted in 2007. This year, UCSC offered admission to 63.7% of applicants. UCSC hopes to contain the entering class to about 3,700 students. This has me really confused. In 2008 19,138 students entered? But the infobox says there are 14,381 students. This year, which year is that? Please don't use terms such as current or this year. Please check this data as it may have been vandalised or accidentally altered. Yes check.svg Done
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    References, is it Randal Jerrell or Jerell? - consistency please. Yes check.svg Done
    References need to be consistently formatted, some are just bare URLs Yes check.svg Done
    4 deadlinks repaired and seven tagged, using WP:CHECKLINKS X mark.svg Not done now eight dead links Yes check.svg Done
    Other references OK
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Overall the article is in fairly good shape, just a few concerns mentioned above. On hold for seven days, major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    OK, all issues addressed, keep GA status. I have ahppy memories of time spent at Santa Cruz nearly forty years ago! Jezhotwells (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"Offered admission"[edit]

I don't see the problem with that phrasing. Some students who are offered admission may choose to go to a different school. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 02:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It is the numbers that bother me. How come 19,138 students were offered admission in 2008, when the infobox says the total number of students according to the infobox is just 14,381? It needs further explanation, I do understand that not everyone enrols. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
This is standard in the American university system. Students apply to multiple schools, and schools accept more students than they could actually take because they know that not all of the students they accept will actually go to their school.— DroEsperanto (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I get that and the rewrite of the paragraph makes this clearer. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Research section needs role in Chaos theory[edit]

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)