Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Overall Organization

Hi All, I'm thinking that maybe these two sections, Rankings and Distinctions and Freshman Admissions, could be merged, or at least placed next to each other. That way, people could get admissions statistics and rankings information near the same area of the article instead of having to scroll so far down. I'll try to post a suggestion soon. Also, I was thinking that the History section could be moved up the page and be placed before the "Campus" section. This article is definately headed in a more neutral and organized direction! :) Thanks. Woo tangent 02:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's my suggestion

Admissions

Current freshman admissions information for the UC system and UCR can be found here: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/undergrad_adm/paths_to_adm/freshman/scholarship_reqs.html

UC campuses that receive more qualified applicants than admission slots available undertake "comprehensive review," a procedure under which a percentage of the entering class is judged strictly on the basis of high school grades and SAT scores, while the remainder of the entering class is selected after a review of applicants' leadership ability, special talents, ability to overcome hardship, and other factors in addition to grades and test scores.

In common with other UC campuses, UC Riverside requires entering students to take a test gauging their ability to write in the English language at a university level. More information can be found here: http://english.ucr.edu/elwr/index.html.

(A note about this; not all students have to take the AWPE Exam, instead, the ELWR is a requirement, not the Exam itself, and the ELWR can be satisfied in various ways. Maybe this portion could be taken out?)

Other notes on admissions to UCR:

1 In 2004-05, UCR had the second-highest acceptance rate of any campus in the UC system, 79 percent. The Merced campus had the highest rate, and Santa Cruz followed UCR.
2 The average GPA and SAT scores at UCR were 3.48 and 1,074, respectively.
3 The percentage of students admitted to UC Riverside and who opted to attend was 17.3 percent, the second-lowest in the UC system, after the newly opened UC Merced.[13]
4 70 percent of entering students placed below calculus. UCR no longer offers intermediate algebra (since it was considered a remedial course). The students who placed in intermediate algebra had to be placed into pre-calculus.
5 According to freshman admission data for 2003-05 published by the UC Office of the President (UC Merced excluded)[14], approximately 20 percent of UCR's freshman classes came from low socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds, the highest percentage in the UC system. Low SES was defined as having a family income below $30,000 per year and as belonging to the first generation to attend college.
6 The same study reported that 28 percent of UCR students graduated from low-performing high schools, based on Academic Performance Index data[14]. That was the highest percentage of any UC campus.

Rankings

1 US News and World Report's "America's Best College" issue for 2007 ranked UC Riverside 88th among national universities and 39th among public institutions,[47][48]. Its undergraduate business program was ranked 77th (of 141), and its undergraduate engineering program was 87th (out of 102)[49]. UCR's graduate programs were unranked by the publication.
2 The Princeton Review's "Best 361 Colleges, 2006'" guide (ISBN 0-375-76483-6) listed UCR as one of the "Best Western Colleges"[50] and one of "America's Best Value Colleges"[51].
3 But Princeton Review also said UCR was one of the worst 20 colleges in the nation for "Professors Get Low Marks [for Teaching]"[52], "Teaching Assistants Teach Too Many Upper-Level Courses"[53] and "Professors Make Themselves Scarce."[54]
4 In 2006, Washington Monthly, which assesses the quality of schools based on social mobility (e.g., percentage of Pell Grant recipients who graduate), academic quality (e.g., percentage of graduates who go on to earn Ph.D.s), and community service ranked UCR 22nd among "National Universities."[55]

Obviously, the 'Rankings' section won't make sense under the section titled "Students and Faculty". To solve this, I suggest that "Admissions and Rankings" just be a section in itself.

Thanks, Woo tangent 02:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
As long as the information is accurate and NPOV, I have no objection to your suggested reorganization. The problem with including them in the first place is the fact that somebody will have to keep updating them — or, eventually they will get out of date. GeorgeLouis 03:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I found an updated list of new statistics, and indeed you are correct. All of the statistics are now out of date, and the user who said that UCR was "the worst" on many of the categories is not right anymore. I suggest that the Admissions section just stick to what is easiest to update: SAT scores and GPA scores. However, for now I will include the percentage of admits that are locals, ACT composite scores, first generation college student percentages, low family income percentages, and low high school API scores, but I will include this in a neutral way, and not compare UCR to any other colleges as to purposefully add a negative tone to this article. Also, I will get rid of the bullet points as a user suggested above. Woo tangent 04:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The raw data without comparisons would not be helpful or informative. In fact, the more comparisons the better, in my opinion. GeorgeLouis 05:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think comparisons between UCR's statistics and another college's statistics would be the best thing for this article. Doing so may raise more neutrality issues. For example, if this article were to say that UCR's admits have a lower GPA than UCB's admits, then that will give the article a negative tone. I found this to be a major problem in the old Admissions section. If a user were curious about another UC's statistics in relation to UCR's, they could either visit the reference cited or visit another UC's Wikipedia article, or another college's Wikipedia article. Besides, I think this article, since it is just about UCR, should just display UCR's statistical information. However, I suppose I could put up UCR's position on these statistics in comparison to other UC's. For example, I could put up that UCR was 9th out of the 10 UC's concerning Fall 2006 incoming freshmen average GPA. But, I'm afraid that this may once again give a negative tone to the article. Otherwise, the admissions section still needs how many applications UCR recieved for Fall 2006 and how many they admitted. I'm still working on finding that information. Thanks for your feedback; I'm really trying to help out! :) Woo tangent 06:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What we need is essentially a new article, University of California admission standards, or something of the sort, to which all pages for the individual campuses could point. It is no secret that UCLA and UC Berkeley are the first-choice schools for a lot of Californians and the other campuses less so. A new entry could be essentially NPOV and a welcome addition. GeorgeLouis 10:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Chart showing editing spike in March, April, May 2006

The chart at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~tony_sidaway/cgi-bin/vandalism?period=month&period1=200101&period2=200612&article=University+of+California%2C+Riverside&lang=en&Go=Go is labeled List of vandalism reverts, but the red bars actually indicate the number of edits in the UCR article. There was a spike in March-April-May, with a particular jump in April, 2006. GeorgeLouis 06:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities (and length)

I rearranged the sections to more closely reflect the template in Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities. Also this article is getting to be quite lengthy. I suggest trimming the history section drastically since it links to a Main article on UCR history.

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 06:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please update new 2007 US News Diversity facts?

The ones currently listed are outdated. Latest U.S. News shows UCR even more diverse. Top 4 in the Nation, Thanks College Watch 20:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


This is incorrect. UCR is tied for # 3.

RFC

Because the issues outlined in the RFC have essentially been resolved, I think we should withdraw it. I'll go ahead and do that if there are no objections within the next couple of days. szyslak (t, c, e) 06:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

UV Towers Removal

The UV Towers picture is very misleading because it seems like it is UCR's student housing, except that is is PRIVATE housing, and you don't necessarily have to be a verifed UCR student to live there. I would rather have a picture of the various dorms (AI, Lothian, Pentland Hills, or even family housing) rather than that.

-- Thanks for pointing this out! The previous caption under the picture was misleading, since it said that the UV Towers were student housing, which many people might assume to just mean dorms. Therefore, I reworded the caption under the UV Towers picture to make it clear that the UV Towers are university-sanctioned apartments that are available for students to use. A picture change is a good idea, but until a new one is put up I think this solves the problem for now. :) Woo tangent 10:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

-- That is INCORRECT! The UV Towers is in NO WAY connected to the University at all! That is why I call for it to be removed. The ONLY apartments for students/faculty that is sanctioned by the University are: Bannockburn & Village, Stonehaven, International Village, and the Student/Family housing complex. I say it should be removed entirely or replaced by a picture of dorms or official UCR apartment housing.

Addition: UV Towers apartment complex IS NOT University sanctioned! There is NO CONNECTION between the UV Towers and UCR at all!!

---I just checked housing.ucr.edu and you are correct! The only thing mentioned about UV Towers on that site is just some moving-in directions to the apartment complex. Sorry, I guess I misunderstood what you were saying, I'll take the UV Towers information out. Woo tangent 04:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

-- UC Riverside's Housing Department leased part of the 4th floor and all of the 6th and 7th floor of the UV Towers because of a large number of students wanting to live in the Residence Halls.Ewok812 06:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

-- The UC leases a lot of offices and building, it seem redundant adress them in the article. Furthermore, there is resident hall which are full owned by the UC and on UC property which deserve mention before the UV Towers. I feel that Bannockburn & Village, Stonehaven, International Village, and the Student/Family housing complex should be mention before this. Asian Animal 00:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge UC Riverside College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences Article?

Hi all. This article has been tagged with a merger proposal. It suggests that the article UC Riverside College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences be merged with this article. Since this article is already longer than recommended, I think it would be a better idea to just link to the UC Riverside College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences article. Woo tangent 15:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why that particular subsection of UCR needs a page or a mention at all. It is not Notable, just a part of UCR. I believe it should be deleted. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 07:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree - no merger, just deletion for the other article. How would we go about doing this the right way? Has enough time passed that we can remove the merge templates and apply a deletion template? --ElKevbo 17:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As soon as you find out how to do a request for deletion, just go ahead. I am sure you will find no objection from the good folks who hang out here. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 17:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the merge template from both articles as there was no consensus to merge. I have also nominated the other article for deletion; please participate in the AFD process. --ElKevbo 15:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The UV Towers building is used as overflow housing, and has a large number of UCR students.

Mascot

UCR's official sports mascot are "The Highlanders." It is NOT a "nickname." A nickname has conotations of being unofficial or a title given by another party, which is clearly not true. "Scotty" is a representative of the Highlander (scottish kilt wearing bear) which is low key name. Ask people on campus, very few people knows who Scotty is, but practically everyone knows about The Highlanders.

Thank you for your comment. You may be right about the name Scotty. A quick Internet search shows only that the UCR Library has a cataloging system called by that name. An early entry for UCR mascot was simply "A tartan-clad bear." Somebody added Scotty later. It would be helpful if you could find if that bear was ever officially given a name. I'm removing Scotty as a name for the bear until its bona fides can be uncovered. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 00:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


--- Official information about UCR's mascot: http://www.catalog.ucr.edu/current/ucr.html. It is The Highlanders, Scotty the bear. Also a Big West conference mascot contest: http://espnzone.com/pressreleases/03-10-06-mascot.shtml

Well, put it in, with both references. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 06:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

ElKevbo

Instead of reverting my edits, why not correct or add to them, reshape them in a means that brings it into a context you see as more fitting? Perhaps I should start a seperate segment for the animal cruelty and experimentation that goes on at UC, given that the opening paragraph would be far too restrictive to mention the many cases involved? I'm a bit hesitant about making any more changes as you seem to revert in defense of the article IMHO and not in the interest of Wikification as such.  :/ 211.30.71.59 00:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind anyone adding well-referenced material to this or any other article. I am not convinced, however, that the material you are attempting to add is well-referenced. Allow me to offer my opinion on the four references you have cited:
  • [1]: This is essentially a blog and thus a very weak source
  • [2]: Fails to even mention UCR
  • [3]: Fails to even mention UCR
  • [4]: Fails to even mention UCR
If there is additional evidence, please present it. If I have missed something in the sources above, please correct me. And feel free to leave additional messages here or my talk page! --ElKevbo 01:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
All of the articles mention the University of California. Instead of being defensive and reverting with whimsical comments, perhaps it would have been more mature to merely say, "Wrong campus buddy, you're looking for UC Davis, they do all the animal testing." ... 211.30.71.59 01:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't search those articles for "UC Davis." I searched for "Riverside" and "UCR." If I had noticed that they were about another campus then I may have said something. But it's wrong to blame me that the cited sources don't mention UCR and they were removed from the UCR article.
Let me make sure I understand you: Are you asserting that these sources are relevant as they mention or are about the University of California system or another UC campus? --ElKevbo 01:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I erroneously ended up on the Riverside page, my entry was intended for the UC page proper. UC has quite a track record as far as animal rights victories through legal enforcement by the USDA, massive fines and legislative development are concerned. I'm surprised that the articles have been sanitised to not mention them as it detracts from the credence of all the hard work done by students supporting anti-cruelty campaigns over the past thirty years. Again, my mistake and I apologise for it. 211.30.71.59 02:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, no problem. Best of luck! --ElKevbo 03:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Request to remove some "Notable" faculty

I suggest what we remove notable faculty who has no Wikipedia page. They're not really notable if they don't have a page. I feel this should be the minimum standard for being notable, otherwise, any professor can be on that list. Furthermore, I feel that if no user can state why a particular faculty is notable besides being a professor should be removed. I suggest that the following faculty be removed.

  • Bir Bhanu — Director of the Center for Research and Intelligent Systems, expert in intelligent systems, computer vision, pattern recognition and learning
  • Richard Cardullo — Professor of biology, expert on mammalian fertilization, biophysicist
  • Carl Cranor — Professor of legal philosophy, philosophic issues in science and the law, moral philosophy, regulatory policy, political philosophy, and pioneer of toxic tort litigation, serving as reference to federal Judges, elected to U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, the Collegium Ramazzini (international headquarters in Carpi, Italy), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science
  • Emory Elliott — American Literature scholar and professor of English
  • John Martin Fischer — Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and expert in free will and moral responsibility.
  • Paul Hoffman — Professor of early modern philosophy, moral psychology, philosophy of mind, scholar on the Metaphysics of Descartes
  • Mark Midland - Professor of chemistry, inventor of the Midland Reagent.
  • Antony Norman — Biochemistry professor, vitamin D expert.
  • Umar Mohideen — Professor of physics, measured the Casimir Effect
  • Walid A. Najjar — Researcher in the field of compilers and reconfigurable computing and professor of computer science
  • David Pion-Berlin — Professor of political science, specialty in Latin American studies
  • Michael Pirrung - Professor of chemistry and pioneer in the development of microarrays
  • Victor Rodgers — Professor of bioengineering
  • Jorge Silva-Risso — Professor of marketing and director at marketing research firm J.D. Power and Associates.
  • Ivan Strenski — Holstein family and community professor of religious studies
  • Clifford Trafzer — Writer and lecturer of Native American studies and history departments.
  • Austin Turk — Criminologist and professor of sociology.
  • Frank Vahid — Computer scientist and professor of computer science
  • Xuemei Chen- Professor of plant cell and molecular biology. Recent Recepient of the 2006 Charles Albert Shull Award
  • Ronald Loveridge- Professor of Political Science and Mayor of Riverside
  • Ralph L. Crowder- Historian and Professor of Ethnic Studies

Asian Animal 22:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Go for it! --ElKevbo 23:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

UV Towers image is to remain.

The article does not state that the UV Towers is a part of UCR. It is a fact that UCR leases some floors for UCR students (check the UCR housing website for reference). UV Towers is located at University Village, which does have lecture halls in the movie theatres. I think the image is important because it shows interested and well developed housing options for prospective students. College Watch 00:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

UV Towers is "overflow" housing, which means that it's not even an option for students. It means that students aren't able to get into the official University dorms (A&I, Lothian, Pentland Hills) so they are forced to go to UV Towers (much like GrandMarc in the past). If you even know anything about UV Towers living, it is not even a well developed housing option, as construction of that building was rushed to begin with, and has suffered with numerous complaints from student tenants with bad management and maintenance (which even have no connection to University at all...).

If you honestly care about showing interesting and well developed housing options, why not discuss all the options for on campus dorming and apartment complexes available? Oh wait, it already is discussed in the housing section under student life. In addition, why have a picture of the "outsourced housing option for incoming students (UV Towers)" when it would be more appropriate to actually have a picture of the actual, official on-campus housing options available for students? Dorms: A&I, Lothian, Pentland Hills. Apartments: Bannockbourn & Plaza, Stonehaven, International Village. Or even student/faculty family housing available. And even at the University Extension center, there is a floor available for international student housing which most students do not know about (and regular students can live there, but it is not well known).

Cosecant 00:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


I agree with Cosecant, the article should display the important aspect of UCR housing and not contingency plans that the housing department has. Furthermore, CollegeWatch please discuss your reverts before you do them. If you do add content, PLEASE use correct spelling. Asian Animal 00:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


I don't have an image of Stonehaven or International Village, I will compromise and add an image of the Sterling Apartment complex without mention of any UC affiliation. Since I took this image myself, please do not remove it, unless you intend to discuss or possibly replace it with a nice picture of "offical student housing" such as Stonehaven or IV. College Watch 09:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just because "you took the picture" means that no one else is permitted to take it down even if it is ambiguous or incorrect? Can we just settle with no picture until someone takes one of correct housing instead of having a picture of a complex that doesn't have anything to do with the University at all? I understand your concern for showing an image of available housing, but I think it is better to have no image than a potentially misleading image. Cosecant 09:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Highlander mascot section change proposal

The current section regarding the Highlander mascot should be moved/merged (both sections have the exact same image?!) into Athletics. It is also too lengthy, and those truly wanting to learn about the history of the mascot should just be forwarded to the UCR athletics page about the mascot, since the current section is just a rehash of the information found on that

Cosecant 01:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Moving most of the information into the athletics article (if there is anything new here) with a link to that article & section sounds like a good idea to me. --ElKevbo 01:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. Most of the information could be reduced to a one or two line summary with a link.--Amerique dialectics 22:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Move the extensive mascot history section to this section of the UCR History article: History_of_the_University_of_California,_Riverside#From_a_Liberal_Arts_College_to_a_Research_University,_the_Early_Years_of_UCR . I can work it in later.--Amerique dialectics 04:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal to move the mascot history section to the UCR history section. Cosecant 22:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

New picture of overpass mural requested

Can someone please shoot or add a better or more recent image of the Route 60, University Avenue Overpass? The one on the article is ugly as sin (complete with construction and big rig trucks on top). In addition, the mural isn't really shown at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by College Watch (talk • contribs) 09:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Well, "since I took this picture myself, please do not remove it," not that I am attempting to WP:OWN my edits at all. I don't care if anyone removes or replaces this pic. Your criticisms however are interesting in that they reveal an aesthetic sense that could not be guessed at from your earlier contributions, including (updated!) pics of a particularly horrendous-looking construction site, and for some inexplicable reason a list of various construction sites on campus. Also, you seem to be misunderstanding or willfully ignoring established consensus here re: photos of non-official UCR housing facilities. though I personally couldn't care less if any or every housing pic were of off-campus, private complexes, I can see how the majority of people here would find photos of only university-owned, on-campus housing appropriate.
The freeway pic itself was shot from behind a windshield, however. I am willing to cut a deal with you, provided no one else objects to the removal of either of these: I will remove the freeway pic if you remove the construction site pic. (also, the shot of the biological sciences building should probably be reduced to around 200-220 px. i like your pic of the big "c," however.)--Amerique dialectics 19:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I did actually reduce the image sizes of my other posted campus buildings. I do however, think that the construction pic should remain because, after a recent visit to the campus, there were quite a few construction sites; and it alludes to the growing future of the campus. The overpass mural used to look rather nice (perhaps an older image would be better?), but with all the new 60/215/90 Highway construction the mural overpass really looks bad, and the heavy traffic in the pic really doesn't help it. College Watch 20:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

UC Seal Image

What happened to the more colorful UCR seal image? I think that may be better than the current B&W one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by College Watch (talk • contribs) 00:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

I'm inclined to support CW in this case... The "official" seal appears too light. The more colorful seal still appears on some UCR websites, including [5].--Amerique dialectics 21:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This academic year UCR underwent a design change, a "new, unified institutional brand" (http://www.styleguide.ucr.edu/index.php) so along with a new UCR brand logo, they also changed up the seal. So this new seal is the current revision, and the older "colorful" one is actually outdated. The new UCR styleguide page should explain it.

Cosecant 05:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the new seal looks more like a tracing of a seal, rather than "the seal." It doesn't show up on my screen nearly as well as the seals for the other UC campuses on Wiki, all of which are idiosyncratic to some degree. Also, no other UCR website, to my knowledge, even the recently updated ones, display this new seal. It looks like it was intended to be a watermark or something suggestive of the seal rather than a more prominent visual representation... The previous one, which is still in use at UCR, is far superior, and much better complements the other odd UC seals on this site. this is just my take on it. best, --Amerique dialectics 20:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Also if you notice, this new design is inconsistent with the other UC seals, and the previous UCR seal, in that it depicts the "rays of light" as emanating in straight lines from the book itself, rather than arcing around from the star above it. This wouldn't be the first time UCR admin messed something up. I fully support withdrawing this symbol until some UCR websites are actually seen to be using it, which I doubt will happen, as its minimalism, if not a mistake, definitely appears in stark contrast to the more definite (large block letters) and colorful (blue and gold highlights, as opposed to stark b/w) "new unified institutional brand" they apparently want to promote.)--Amerique dialectics 02:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg Image:UC seal.gif




This one I found on a google search can be made larger than 96px!


This one at that size.

I would agree with Cosecant, the University has redesigned the seal and therefor we should show the according seal. Showing the color seal would be mean we're showing outdated information. Please put back the current UCR seal. Asian Animal 11:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, Chancellor Cordova's office is spearheading adoption of this new symbol: [6] I wrote a rather strongly worded message on the "Dear Chancellor" feature on her site pointing out how the new seal is inconsistent with previous UCR seals and with the seal of the University of California, not to mention with the graphical standards of the "new, unified institutional brand" she claims to promote. We'll see if this leads to anything. I have no further opinion on this in the meantime. --Amerique dialectics 22:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Since Amerique has found a site using the new seal, I move to change to the seal. Asian Animal 13:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing ettiquite

I suppose this could be discussed on almost any topic, and it may seem a bit of a personal rant, but I feel that is worth discussing.

Contributors seem to be randomly making changes on this article without discussing it or making sensible comments. They also want to put outdated information, if it is within their personal favor to do so. Also, do people not even spell check before submitting edits? There have been recent edits (within this month) with spelling errors, mediocre/bad grammar (run-ons, missing commas, incorrect capitalization, etc).

  • It would be easier for everyone if we fix these problems as we notice them.--Amerique dialectics 06:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm tickled pink that the worst we're having to deal with in this article is outdated information and poor grammar. :) --ElKevbo 06:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but at least "He who shall not be named" had some kind of a plan for this article!--Amerique dialectics 22:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The Highlander

I will go over some personal issues on editing this page in which I have some say on. There doesn't really need to be any specifics about the newspaper. There is really nothing that special that needs to be on the front page. And if it were that noteworthy, it would warrant another article instead of taking up space on the front page. Look at other UC pages, they just have a link to the newspapers than having anything more than a sentence about it, and some of their newspapers may be of more importance than the Highlander.

I also took out the blurb because it was written very poorly. The contributor of the poorly written piece about the highlander wrote in response (also with internet slang "ur," that seems very professional) that if I didn't like it, that I should edit it. First, I feel that the Highlander section was unnecessary. In addition to that, it was written very poorly. Two relatively convincing arguments for its removal. Because really, I don't know if "the highlander office has a darkroom to print pictures, and they have meetings every week!" is really necessary for an article about UCR. It sounds more like an advertisement for the newspaper, which isn't what the UCR article is about. Also, no one cares if the highlander website has been "off and on again." It hasn't even been updated for two years, so it is even incorrect when it said it was last on at 2006 or something.

  • I agree. The material on the Highlander does not seem to pass WP:Notability guidelines. Also, the information on Fiat Lux in "Publications" should just fill out its link in External Links. "Publications" should be deleted, but I wouldn't object to a section on "Student Media" that would briefly outline various student publications, including the Highlander, in the context of student life.--Amerique dialectics 06:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
is this called an encyclopedia, or your personal blog that you can freely add and delete? i used "ur" because i didn't have enough space to type every single letters. yes, if you didn't like what you read, feel free to add and edit. this is a free encyclopedia, this is not delete anything you don't like web site. of course, this is something very special about the newspaper, it is a newspaper that is published by UCR students for the students. you don't see the need, but other people read them, publish them.
and why don't you suggest that we delete this whole article, and just put a direct link to www.ucr.edu then? since the ucr site has everything about the school. why do you feel the need to compare with other schools, do you have the inferiority about UCR? just because they don't have it, that doesn't mean UCR article can not have it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.6.47.6 (talk • contribs)
Please review the appropriate Wikipedia guidelines. --ElKevbo 18:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The mascot name

Just because "Scotty" has not been mentioned in that UCR athletics school mascot page, does not mean he does not exist. If you need further proof, the UCR Catalog which you can pick up in print, or online here: http://www.catalog.ucr.edu/current/ucr.html The Highlanders represent the athletics for UCR, Scotty is a Highlander bear that represents school spirit and tradition.

Campus Mascot: Highlanders/Scotty the Bear that is quoted directly from the web site. so stop changing the mascot's name.

  • I agree with this also, perhaps this distinction could be delineated by listing "Highlanders" as a nickname and "Scotty" as a mascot. The UCLA infobox does this with "nickname:Bruins," "mascot:Joe and Josephine Bruin" --Amerique dialectics 06:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
scotty is only a nickname, not that many people know about it. and why do you people like to compare with ucla? don't be ridiculous, if they have a 'josephine bruin," what are you going to name the female "scotty?" which is unheard of. the official name for the mascot is highlander. the athletes at UCR didn't call themselves the scotties, did they? they call themselves the highlanders.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.6.47.6 (talk • contribs)
No, "Scotty" is the name of the bear mascot that visually represents "the Highlanders." The name "Highlanders" represents the athletic teams, which in turn represent the school. No one is talking about inventing another (female) mascot, this is simply about acknowledging the guy in the bear suit that appears on the sidelines at UCR athletic games. (Your opposition to this is interesting considering your defense of an entire section of mascot history.)--Amerique dialectics 22:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The seal

Ok, we even had a discussion page about it. Some of you don't like the new UCR seal, and prefer an older one. But does it make it correct if we show an older seal when the community that edits the page knows that there is a newer, current one (that is even pushed by the current Chancellor)? That by nature, shows that this UCR article has outdated information.

  • Well, it doesn't make it strictly "incorrect" by showing the old symbol, as the symbol is still in effect on some UCR websites. Besides, the chancellor is clearly incorrect and out of line of UC graphical conventions in pushing this new symbol. I don't think she designs her own websites, she probably just rubberstamped the proposal of her graphic design dept w/o researching the details. --Amerique dialectics 06:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see what the validity of your argument, there is documented changed of the seal by UCR. It doesn't matter if "WE" dislike it, furthermore, it doesn't matter if the UCR seal does not appear to be consistent with the other UC seals. If there is style issues with the seal, it's up to the UC and UCR to resolve and not for the Wikipedia community to decide. Our job is to keep the information as accurate as possible. In my humble opinion it is unethical to knowingly keep information on the page outdated. Asian Animal 03:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • For me, it is mainly just a matter of being able to easily make out what the seal is... the chancellor hasn't gone so far as to rescind any old logos, only "encourage" adoption of this one. For whatever reason, she decided that this would help "reduce the fragmented impact of competing messages and logos from outside media..." Way to go about doing that, Chancellor Cordova.--Amerique dialectics 07:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Mascot section

Removal of a redundant section regarding the mascot's history had seconded moves for its removal, yet it kept popping up. The ENTIRE section is basically lifted off the UCR Athletics website about the mascot, why keep it? Anyone wanting information about the mascot can go to the referred link.

  • As a way of compromising, I propose moving this section to an appropriate section of the UCR History article.--Amerique dialectics 06:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to discuss this points so people can make better judgments on editing. Maybe people will, or maybe not. But I just wanted to bring it out here just in case.

Cosecant 02:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

tell me, why did you call yourself cosecant and amerique? and why did your parents name the name that you have now? why don't you call yourself george w. bush? of course, there is a need to write about the history of the school mascot which is used to represent the school spirit! yes, a lot of information are "basically lifted off the UCR web site." why keep those? anyone wanting information about UCR can go to the referred link. www.ucr.edu, so why don't you just delete this whole article?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.6.47.6 (talk • contribs)

As juvenile as this sounds, I personally have lots of free time. Editing War?
Well the point of this section was to be civil and discuss changes rather than to argue with each other what one person thinks is right over again. Perhaps there is a need for an :arbitrator at this point, if it keeps going on like this. :)
Cosecant 08:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
do you have OCD? this is not your personal web site, do you want to write an encyclopedia or your own personal site full of your personal opinions? why do you call yourself ::cosecant, and you won't let others to tell the history of the school mascot? and the official name of the mascot is not the nick name "scotty the bear," it is ::highlander.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.6.47.6 (talk • contribs) 03:57, January 27, 2007
Sign your posts and cease your personal attacks. --ElKevbo 17:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
This guy seems to be operating under a misapprehension of what the visual representation of the mascot is and what the name of the athletic teams is. He seems to think the bear image does not have a distinct "name" and identity apart from the "Highlanders." Basically, he seems confused, not to mention prone to making personal attacks in defense of his confused apprehension of things. (Not unlike a certain president he compares us to.) However, it is far too early to request WP:Arbitration at this point. If WP:DR is to be engaged, I would suggest starting with WP:3, but to me the best course of action would be to simply drop a note about this guy's behavior to WP:WQA. That should take care of it.--Amerique dialectics 22:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and wrote in the early mascot history to the main UCR history article here:[7], with another source cited for the new information.--Amerique dialectics 07:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Official mascot name is HIGHLANDER

http://www.athletics.ucr.edu/administrative/mascot.html

the title is UC Riverside Highlanders mascot. you don't put your nick name on your resume, do you? How many students actually know the nickname of the mascot? read the mascot history, "A write-in campaign, led by the men’s basketball team, was begun for the name “Hylanders,” a name suggested by freshman coed Donna Lewis."

http://www.catalog.ucr.edu/current/ucr.html

2006-2007 catalog Campus Mascot: Highlanders/Scotty the Bear--OCDpatient 23:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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)