Talk:University of California, Riverside

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A mortarboard This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of Universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the University of California, Riverside article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

Article policies
Archive
Archives






Contents

[edit] Deletions

[edit] stop deleting mascot history

this is a UCR article, the mascot is a part of UCR pride and spirit. why do you keep deleting it? where should you put it if you delete it? people will want to know what UCR's mascot is, this is the proper article to write about it.

and stop deleting the student newspaper, too. It is a part of UCR. just because there is a link, that is just not enough. otherwise, why do you even bother to write an article about UCR? you can just put a direct link to www.ucr.edu --OCDpatient 23:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, lets put back the mascot in a sub-article as I had in the Athletics section. College Watch 08:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  • If you want to create a separate article that links to this one just for mascot history like OCDpatient did, by all means go ahead. But general consensus here seems to be against overly detailed accounts of our furry friend Scotty the bear on the UCR main page. There is some material in the UCR history article you can use if you want it.--Amerique dialectics 09:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article drive?

Its been a long term goal of mine to get this article to WP:FA status. I think doing so would be the best way to maintain neutrality and ensure quality in the long term, and it would be a wiki feather in all our caps if we were to do this collectively. No other UC article has attained even a "good" quality peer review on WP, and considering what this article has been through I would say it more than deserves it.

Of university articles that have attained this status, Michigan State University, though a vastly different institution, seems closest in academic profile to UCR, and I would like to try modeling the format of the UCR article on that article. This would mean a pretty large-scale reorganization and redevelopment of this article from top to bottom, but I am willing to work according to consensus and I think if most of us continued working together like we have recently in identifying problems and solving them, achieving a featured quality article should not be a significant problem this year. Though there is a lot to be done to that end.--Amerique dialectics 23:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Awesome idea, especially because the page has been more or less stable for a while. I think, in its current state, this is the best of all the UC campus articles. (I think all those that have been evaluated are at B-Class.) Is everyone still open to the idea of a UC WikiProject? I suggested that months ago, but I'm lazy, so nothing happened. szyslak (t, c) 00:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that this is a good idea, but I would support making the article more balanced, such as mentioning the less desirable aspects of the school.Insert-Belltower 01:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm definitely interested. A "UC wikiproject" could assist in developing consensus for handling content problems system-wide. (Problem users, of course, would still be handled according to the usual channels.) Of the UC articles, I actually think UCI's is the best one, though it may have been the inspiration for this recent mascot episode we've just had. Anyway, I would join and fully support a UC wikiproject but I would mainly be interested in working on this article for the time being. Best, --Amerique dialectics 01:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Route 60, University Avenue Overpass Pic

I think that this pic is very low yield; all it shows is an overpass with "UC Riverside" printed on it. In my opinion, pics should show the unqiue and key features of the school (eg. Belltower). To me this pic is kind of mundane and I motion to remove it. What do you guys think? Insert-Belltower 01:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I defer to those more familiar with the campus and its surroundings. The picture does not do much for me but I don't know if it's an important feature or somehow notable. --ElKevbo 01:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Negative. The overpass is a key feature of the immediate geography forming a "gateway" between the main campus and UV. Also, the Gluck "Gateway" mural is painted beneath it. I wouldn't object to a better one, of course.--Amerique dialectics 01:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The overpass servers more of a "gateway" between UCR and the local commerce. However, I feel that it doesn't highlight the university, the space can be use for the Arts building, the new Alumni building, or perhapses a picture of the main entrance near the overpass. Asian Animal 06:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Measurements in captions

Are exact units of measurements really needed in certain captions? Examples: bell tower picture caption saying it is 49.1 meters tall, the "C" picture with it's feet/meter measurements, and the Science Library saying it was opened in 1991 when the Rivera picture right above it doesn't have a date.
I would prefer if these captions were a bit simpler without exact measurements, does anyone else see a necessarily a need for them?
...Cosecant 21:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, exact measurements are unnecessary. I don't care if the bell tower is 49.1 meters tall or 50 meters tall. Asian Animal 04:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rankings

It seems to me that the rankings brief in terms relative to the other UC's. I think it would more descriptive mention the relative rank of UCR. Insert-Belltower 04:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that statement is relevant here, the UC page has a nice table breaking down the ranks of all the UCs. I'm reverting it back to the way it was before. Asian Animal 04:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I think this was discussed to death a few months ago. My position has not changed - it's not notable. Asian Animal is correct that the info belongs in the UC article and not here. --ElKevbo 04:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
In the ranking section, what about if we put a link to the UC page? Insert-Belltower 20:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. I'm not totally opposed to the idea as I think it could be tasteful and appropriate. It's already in the UC category so I'd hate to make the link too prominent. My primary concern would be the reasoning behind adding a link to the UC page in this specific section and not in others where similar comparisons could (and should and are) be made. I would be POV if the comparison were only made in this section or in others where UCR compares particularly well or particularly poorly with other UC institutions. We need to aim for consistency and NPOV. --ElKevbo 21:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comparisons between UCR and other UCs should only be done in context. Virtually all schools are "good" within one grouping and "bad" within another. Like, the lowest ranked Ivy League schools are "good" among the top 100 in the nation and "bad" in comparison to Harvard/Princeton/Yale. What's really important, if we must play the ranking game, is how a school fares in the grand scheme of things. szyslak (t, c) 23:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Your criteria for ranking seems somewhat arbitrary. The "grand scheme of things is inherently vague." No one here is suggesting a good/bad connotation for UC Riverside. All saying is that is the relative rank should be referred to because this article is partially written in the context of the UC system.Insert-Belltower 19:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
We don't need a link to the UC page in the ranking section. A link to that page already exists, it's at the top of the page saying ucr is a part of the uc Asian Animal 07:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Seconding AsianAnimal.--Amerique dialectics 00:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Nom. Ready?

I was discussing with Szyslak as to whether this article currently is "good article" nomination worthy. I personally have no idea, but I wouldn't mind nominating it just to receive an outside eval as to how to best improve the article as it stands currently. What do you all think? Should we nominate this article at WP:GAN sometime next week or just keep working at it independently for the time being? Best,--Ameriquedialectics 07:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should do it. Even if we're not worthy we will get feedback on how to make the page worthy. However, we will need a point person to lead the GA push. When this point person has free time, thats when i feel we should make the GA push. I nominate Amerique to lead the GA push! :-D Asian Animal 10:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I concur. Insert-Belltower 22:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah...I agree. The best page compared to the other UC's. Dylan Schiff 20:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unable to edit

Is some vandalism going on? I'm not allowed to edit the page. Dylan Schiff 20:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The picture of the UV, in the student life/ student demographics section is labelled as "the university villiage and villiage bookstore." The bookstore isn't there anymore. Could someone who has an account, and some clearance please delete that, and say "Tropics Billiards," or "one of the two starbucks", before that closes down too?

[edit] The lead

I think the lead needs work if you folks are looking to get some more formal recognition for the article. The first para (as it is now after my edit) seems fine as historial info, but what then? An ideal lead is three paras that summarise the article in a concise way. Would it be possible to expand the lead to do that? Metamagician3000 23:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I see someone has just edited the lead while ignoring that it is being discussed on the talk page. Metamagician3000 00:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that edit had a lot of other problems, e.g. the use of heights in metres - quite inappropriate for a US-related article. I reverted. Better to start again than try to salvage anything useful from it. Metamagician3000 00:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the history of this article, the guy that dramatically changes everything (changes headings, adds metric measurements, puts incorrect information about the mascot) is quite a frequent sock and vandal of the article. He always comes back from time to time. Cosecant 02:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it is right now - so much was happening at once that it got confusing. If necessary, feel free to revert to what you consider a good version while also preserving any good things I have done. E.g. I had a reason to break up the lead into two paras as a start to work on expanding it (which seems necessary if the article is going to start heading towards the grail of the FA process). Also, I wikified some headings that seemed wrong even in the good versions. But I don't want to cause confusion here. Metamagician3000 02:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
If the vandalism keeps happening from an anon, I can semi-protect the page for you. Let me know if you need that at any point. Metamagician3000 02:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
A s-protect would be good right now, since the vandalism from this particular sock has been increasing lately. It would also be a good time to focus our efforts into editing and fixing without disturbance. I had a few edits I had in mind to the athletics and spirit section but with our anon "friend" in the way, it made it a little more difficult. Thanks. :) Cosecant 06:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[unindent]Done - I sprotected for the next three weeks. That should give regular editors on the article a good period of peace. Metamagician3000 06:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SummerThunder

The sock puppet edit warrior who makes questionable changes to the lead, adds trivia about the "Highlander" mascot and calls those who disagree with his edits "vandals" is the hardbanned SummerThunder troll. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of SummerThunder and Wikipedia:Long term abuse/SummerThunder. The next time a SummerThunder sock shows up, please make a report on WP:ANI so he can be blocked right away. szyslak (t, c) 07:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

For further evidence, see the very similar contributions of OCDpatient (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), who was identified as a SummerThunder sock some time ago. szyslak (t, c) 07:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)