Jump to content

Talk:University of California, Davis/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Controversy

To whom it may concern, Please do not delete this section without permission, if anybody feels offended by this section please contact one of the Wikipedia admins or post it on the discussion area. This section has vital information about the Universities judicial system. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.189.230.2 (talk)

The section deserved deletion. It was completely unsourced and very far from npov. If you wish to fix it so that it follows the established guidelines then you are welcome to readd the information. Mikemill 08:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Humor

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

Not appropriate for external linksHechung 22:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

mascot of UC Davis

Gunrock is the name of the costumed blue horse who roams the fields during sporting events. He is the mascot of various sports teams, but he is not the campus mascot. The campus mascot is simply the mustang.

Numerous articles from the ucdavis.edu website name the mustang as the school's official mascot (and not Gunrock specifically). These include:

In particular, the second link says that the mascot was chosen to be the mustang in honor of a throughbred named Gunrock, a mustang, who was brought to the campus some time ago.

Look at the mascot field in the other universities' infoboxes. For UCSD it is the tritons, for UCSC it is the banana slugs, UCR the Highlanders, SJSU the spartans, MIT the beavers, and finally for UC Berkeley it is the golden bears. None of the mascot fields in these universities' infoboxes mention the name of the costumed menace except for UC Berkeley, but the name is included as a minor parenthetical note.

Finally I will cite the second sentence in the second paragraph in the "Sports, clubs, traditions, and student activities" section of this very article, which says that the official school mascot is the mustang.

Since people seem to want to include Gunrock, I'll add his name in parentheses. But again, the official school mascot is just "the mustang" or "the mustangs". This is what belongs in the mascot field of UCD's infobox. 10:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not necessary to mention Gunrock, but the mascot is the mustang (singular). It's not "mustangs". The athletic nickname is the Aggies. The difference between UC Davis and the examples you cite is that the athletic nicknames coincide with the mascot. Here it's not the UC Davis mustangs; it's the UC Davis Aggies, as indicated in the official athletic logo. --C S (Talk) 13:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Davis is a bit weird. The mascot has nothing to do with the name the teams go by. UC Davis' official mascot is Gunrock, in any case. He's a mustang. Hence, the page should read "Gunrock the Mustang" under mascot. 128.120.57.105 06:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any references that say Gunrock is the official campus mascot? 06:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. 128.120.57.105 06:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I still think Gunrock is the mascot for the sports teams and more generally the mustangs are the mascot for the entire campus. It looks like we have conflicting information. 06:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The reason why it is unclear is because the pages you cited predate the change in 2003. After the vote, Gunrock the Mustang became the official mascot of the campus, for both athletics and the campus in general. Adding to the confusion is the fact that Gunrock only rears his head at sporting events.128.120.57.105 06:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't know that. Okay, I'll verify those facts myself (probably tomorrow since it's late right now). If you want to you can change the mascot back to Gunrock and I won't revert. 06:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

University of California, Riverside Survey

I'm posting this survey request Talk:University of California, Riverside#UCR Survey on all the UC talk pages in order to gather outside opinion on ongoing issues concerning the POV of this article. Please read the article and add your insights to the survey to help us identify any points of consensus in the UCR article. Thanks--Amerique 21:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey closed, thanks--Amerique 19:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Agricultural School

It seems odd that although this school was founded as an ag school and continues to this day to lead in agricultural research, that there is no mention on the page about current agricultural research being done...like it does not exist. There's talk about the law school the med school the vet school, business and a vague reference to "life science". What about agriculture, which includes animal husbandry, dairy science, plant science, viticulture, pomology and soil science? Davis is known worldwide for agricultural research especially in developing countries.....why not talk about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.193.202.246 (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

School Colors

The school colors are Yale blue and gold, as can be found here. Someone put this in but got reverted because someone else thought it was vandalism. I reverted back but someone reverted me. I don't want to get into a war so I'll post it here and hope someone else changes it. Reference: [1] Nguyenmdk 12:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice this message until just now, so excuse the lateness. I noticed this kind of reversion going on a couple months ago, so I did a little research and made the appropriate changes to the article. It's kinda complicated so let me just copy and paste what I wrote to someone else's user talk page:

Hi. I noticed a little revert war going on at University of California, Davis. This whole blue business is actually kind of messy, but hopefully my recent edits (see [2]) has cleared it up. What you wrote in the edit summary about why there is a blue is correct, but nonetheless Yale Blue is actually a particular shade of blue and UCD's specifications give a different shade. In my edit I tried to clarify the blue's origin, while making it clear that the shades are different. There's actually a source of confusion even at Yale over what Yale Blue should be, but I think my summary is reasonably accurate. --C S (Talk) 11:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

--C S (Talk) 11:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

dachshund vs Jack Russell terrier races

The webpage for the 2006 picnic day [3] list the races as "JACK RUSSELL TERRIER RACES". The also list a "DOXIE DERBY" race. But no dachshund races. So unless some can cite the dachshund as the race breed I'll be reverting it. Mikemill 22:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Doxie Derby is the dachshund races. There are Jack Russell Terrier races but they are by far less popular and not as well-known like the doxie derby. See references on Davis, CA and Picnic Day. See other references here, here and here, official website here. Compare photos for Doxie Derby verses Jack Russell Terrier. --Wakkow 16:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The change looks great. Thanks for clarifying the issue. Mikemill 19:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Animal Cruelty & Testing

The section is in need of some work. Its poorly written and only offers one side's opinion. It also fails to cite any sources. Mikemill 05:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I also wonder if it is appropriate to include such a section to begin with. I would be convinced if this gathered significant enough media coverage. "Significant" would require national news articles at the least, and enough of it to establish that it is one of the most important controversial items that come to mind when considering UC Davis. --C S (Talk) 07:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The University of California is, from an Australian point of view, the most well known university in America in which animal testing is carried out, with an approximation of 70,000 animals at any given time undergoing experimentation, 78% of which are humanely euthanized during or at the end of the experiment. I believe it's imperative that national media covered events should be listed encyclopedically. UC was the first University to have global publication of an accusation of animal abuse in 1986 when the ALF carried out the raid that is most remembered as far as 'animal liberation' goes. I will ammend the section with citation as required, feel free to contribute to it, but I disagree with any whitewashing or sanitisation. 211.30.71.59 06:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
In retrospect, there's so much information in relation to animal cruelty and UC, Davis out there,[4] that I'm definitely not going to take on this challenge alone, if anyone is willing to help?  :/ 211.30.71.59 06:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
After looking at the cited reference I think more is still needed. For example can we get a link to the USDA complaint? This isn't about whitewashing but making sure we present a neutral POV. Including things like official responses to the incidents would be helpful in that regard. I live fairly close to UC Davis and honestly I can not remember any news coverage of such events. Mikemill 14:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe there's been any major news coverage of this. I'm still waiting for references to that. Please, no more links to generic search queries; your Altavista query returns a number of "false positives". A reference for that statement that Australians know UC Davis as "the most well known university in America in which animal cruelty and testing is carried out..." would be nice also. It seems to me that the controversy is around UC Davis' primate research, so I would suggest that some mention of the research and primate center be made in the article. Then some mention can be made (with appropriate references) of the controversy around it. But a whole section? Not warranted. --C S (Talk) 16:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the section. Notability is far from established, no news articles, etc. Additionally, the whole section clearly has a slant to it. I'm not averse to mentioning this stuff, but it needs to be included in a NPOV manner appropriate to its importance. Perhaps along the lines of what I suggested above. --C S (Talk) 00:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The California Aggie, a newspaper published by the students at UC Davis, ran an article about a complaint SAEN filed against the primate center.[5] Would this be enough of a basis to make mention of it in the article? Mikemill 18:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks good. Something should be written about UC Davis' primate research, and then stuff like the fines, complaints, etc. can be mentioned. I would suggest the research section as the appropriate place. --C S (Talk) 00:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I did some searching on the California Aggie website and found a couple of other articles mentioning previous instances. I'll get them together this weekend and write something up. Mikemill 04:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

UC Davis has well implemented approaches to inspecting research laboratories and ensuring that animal experimentation is performed using methods that are as humane and ethical as possible (as are determined by federal and state standards). While no rational argument can sway the opinions of those who equate any experimentation with cruelty, for those who are open to the fact that animal experimentation is necessary for scientific advancement, UC Davis employs many national and state based inspection agencies that enforce the federal Animal Welfare Act among other rules and regulations regarding animal research. In addition to having nearly constant inspections by external agencies, UC Davis has local resources and policies through their Environmental Health and Safety department which serve to uphold national and state laws and regulations at all times. Animal experimentation is a necessary component to research, without which many medical and scientific advancements would not be achieved (or even achievable). Tkessler45 11:26 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I moved the link for Davis wiki to a new section "Other websites" since it isn't exclusively for students but about Davis generally. Please discuss here before reverting this change.--Kenji Yamada 19:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Style Guide

Do we really need a link to the UCD style guide in the opening paragraph? Mikemill 22:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

World Record

Would it be worth mentioning that the students of UCD currently hold the record for the world's largest Flash mob? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TrogdorPolitiks (talk • contribs) 20:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

New nursing school

Someone should add this (from the wire): UC Davis has received a record $100-million pledge from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation to found a nursing school in Sacramento, the school announced Tuesday.[6]. --Bobak 15:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject University of California

Several editors are organizing a WikiProject to better organize articles related to the University of California. A preliminary draft is available here. You are invited to participate in the discussion at Talk:University of California#Developing Wikiproject University of California. szyslak 21:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Public Ivy

UC Davis is listed as a public ivy. do not remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.192.150 (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ucdavis aggies.gif

Image:Ucdavis aggies.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Endowment

See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_University_of_California § Source_of_each_university.27s_endowment

It seems that people are editing endowment information to align with US News and World Report. I concur with Amerique's observation in Talk:University of California, San Diego that US News is an unreliable source unless the information can be corroborated by other sources. Until that point, it seems prudent to keep the University of California endowment figures aligned with those published by the University of California in its Annual Endowment Report.Vantelimus (talk) 04:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

To anyone concerned, this is an issue on multiple campuses. In no case does US News endowment data correspond with info published by the UCOP or the campuses themselves, not to mention the figures published by more reliable new services. If the individual campuses actually had the US News figures in endowment, the UC system wouldn't be in such a financial crisis and real-world news sources wouldn't publish stories like this:[7] putting the total UC endowment at $8 billion or this [8] putting Berkeley's endowment at $2.9 billion. Ameriquedialectics 00:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I added up the US News figures published on its website for 8 individual campuses (Merced and SF were unlisted) and the US News total just for those campuses comes out to 11.289 billion, not even accounting for UCSF's 1.2 billion endowment per the UCOP, which basically proves US News is BS. Ameriquedialectics 04:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Campuses 2008 US News endowments 2006 UCOP Endowment Report
Berkeley 3,344,720,000 2,464,109,000
Davis 1,325,241,000 552,003,000
UCSC 498,821,000 97,450,000
UCSB 713,139,000 151,836,000
UCSD 1,109,929,000 422,454,000
Irvine 855,605,000 189,401,000
UCLA 2,906,498,000 1,912,071,000
Riverside 535,875,000 95,652,000
Total 11,289,828,000 5,290,526,000

Definition of Endowment

It is pretty amazing the wide variation of endowment figures one can get from different sources. Amerique is probably on the right track when he speculates some of the numbers reported in the media (especially those of US News and World Report) add in capital assets not typically consider as part of the University endowment (see Talk:University_of_California,_San_Diego#Endowment). This broader view of the endowment is not what universities view as or report as their endowment. The endowment consists of investment assets which cannot be spent, but may only be used for making investments to derive cash flows to fund university operations, defer tuition, etc. This is in accordance with the University of California in its Annual Endowment Report and other universities. For instance, USC's 2007 financial report states "Endowment net assets are subject to the restrictions of gift instruments requiring that the principal be invested in perpetuity and only the income be utilized for current and future needs."Vantelimus (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No. The UCOP may be dated, but Davis doesn't publish its own numbers, (I've checked) and US News is flat out wrong. The 2006 UCOP report is the most up-to-date reliable information there is. Ameriquedialectics 19:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for posting this reply here, but I wasn't exactly sure where to interject. I was just wondering why most of the UC articles quote the 2006 UCOP figures when we have access to the 2007 annual endowment report. These figures include the earmarked portion from the UC endowment fund and the individual campus foundation totals. If you add these figures together, you will find that the values aren't that far from the projected USNWR figures. Additionally, if you take into account the fact that the USNWR figures include the subsidary graduate department foundation totals and account for projected growth, the 2008 USNWR become muce more realistic. I find it highly unlikely that a reputable news source would simply "fudge" these types of numbers. Amerique, are you absolutely sure that they're wrong? — ŁittleÄlien¹8² (talk\contribs) 08:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
College and university rankings are subjective judgments. Even when based on objectively collected data, the selection of data and the weightings given to the data are subjectively based. Hence, controversy over the usefulness and appropriateness of rankings has arisen (see College_and_university_rankings#Criticism_.28North_America.29). As a way to balance the affects of subjectivity in rankings, Wikipedia articles typically do not rely solely on USNWR rankings, but rather present many of the popular rankings. See, for example, Template:Infobox_US_university_ranking, which uses rankings from USNWR, ARWU, Newsweek, THES, the CMUP, and The Washington Monthly. Other sources beyond these are also commonly used in sections on university ranking, including Time magazine, Princeton Review, and in the case of business schools (see List_of_United_States_graduate_business_school_rankings#Rankings), Business Week, Wall Street Journal, Economist, Forbes, and Financial Times. Indeed, many of these publications and ranking systems provide not one, but many rankings (e.g. National, International, subject area competence, etc.). Endowments, on the other hand, are objective data points in time based on the definitions of financial endowments. Thus, endowments, unlike rankings, have a single authoritative source for each institution, namely, the finance office of the university. When the authoritative source has published information on the endowment, such as the University of California has in its Annual Endowment Report, the information from this source should solely be used. The only time it would be valid to use an estimate for the endowment from a non-authoritative source is when an authoritative source has failed to published the information or the information is drastically out of date (say, five years or longer). Since neither of these two conditions apply for the University of California, I disagree with the proposed usage of USNWR endowment information for the University of California and its constituent campuses. Even if it were the case that we had to rely on estimates for the UC endowment, Amerique has effectively argued that the USNWR figures are wildly inaccurate and so should not be used (i.e. no data would be preferable to bad data). Vantelimus (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
As an aside to 70.133.79.174, register and join the project. There's lots of work to be done to improve the UC articles. I know from my own experience it isn't always easy to get into the encyclopedia mindset, but it seems you wish to make the information here as accurate as possible and that's a big step along the path to making valuable contributions.Vantelimus (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
We use USNWR's ranking because the source of those rankings are written, published, and owned by USNWR. For these rankings, USNWR is the authoritative source since they were the authors of that ranking. However, USNWR is not the author, publisher, or "owner" of each university's endowment. For each university's endowment, UCOP and the respective university is the authoritative source. --BirdKr (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Just reading through this, and I think the endowment listed on U.S World News is correct because it also includes the endowment for the Medical school and center, which is around ~700 million and adds up to be $1.2 billion dollar as listed before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogomon (talk • contribs) 10:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

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 http://www.ucop.edu/treasurer/_files/report/UC_Annual_Endowment_Report_FY2011-2012.pdf 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) 17:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Public University Rank

US News and World Reports ranks UC Davis as 11th tied with University of Washington. 70.133.71.206 changed it back to 8 which it clearly isn't. See [9]. I already changed it and it was changed back so I'd like to get some consensus here. The public schools are: 1. UC Berkeley 2. UVa 3. UCLA 4. Michigan 5. UNC 6. William & Mary 7. Georgia Tech. 8. Wisconsin/UCSD/Illinois 11. Washington/UC Davis 76.208.20.203 (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Guys, it's 8.

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/t1natudoc_brief.php

Count the ones with the * next to them (publics). It's tied for 8th!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.194.27 (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Wrong. You are counting incorrectly. You cannot say UCLA and Michigan are tied for third therefore the fifth university in the list is fourth. The fifth is the fifth in the list unless it is tied with the preceding entry. Note that in the full list UCLA and Michigan are tied for 25th and the next one in the list is 27th, not 26th. Look at the list and notice how ties are handled -- they don't move up entries that are further down the list. Vantelimus (talk) 04:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • UCLA and UMich are tied for 3rd best. UC Davis therefore, is tied for 8th. If two teams are both the same rank, they are tied for that rank. Your logic makes no sense. Revert until it does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.65.180 (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
There are 10 schools ahead of UC Davis in the rankings. That makes it 11th. Does that make sense? (The answer is yes.) Nguyenmdk (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Nguyenmdk has it right. Even if the first ten schools on the list were all tied for 1st place, there would still be 10 schools ahead of Davis, making it 11th, not 2nd. That is the way places on the list are handled. Go look at USNWR National University Rankings. Notice that UPenn and CalTech are tied for 5th place. Notice the next school on the list is MIT at 7th... not 6th... 7th. Vantelimus (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

ranking table

for the rows that say like "Engineering" etc. is that for undergrad. or grad.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.79.35 (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Enrollment/Ethnicity Table

I'm thinking it might be a good idea to put this in the article, much like UCR's here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/University_of_California%2C_Riverside#Admissions.2C_enrollment_and_retention Any other opinions? Pyrofork (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Sounds good to me. I think such information is very much in the encyclopedic spirit. Plus, I think concise tables are often better than verbose prose. It seems a good addition to every UC school article lacking it. Vantelimus (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Someone do it!

Housing

In addition, if no one else objects, I'll add a section about Housing.Pyrofork (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC) {{Portal|California Central Valley}}

I added a link to http://www.onegate.com/go/og/for/uc-davis/index.cfm that someone else deleted because they thought it was spam, but it's a valid resource. Does anyone mind if I add it back in? --PatienceIsAVirtue (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Afraid ElKevbo is right per policies WP:NOTLINK, and Wikipedia:External links. Ameriquedialectics 23:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I still don't understand but I'll go with it. Thanks. PatienceIsAVirtue (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

usnwr ranking 2009

i updated the table for it, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.25.186 (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks, made some minor word edits to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.65.158 (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

2nd oldest campus claim

There is a debate of whether UCD is UCLA is the second oldest campus. UCD was established in 1905 as a farm for UCB and Los Angeles State Normal School became UCLA in 1919. In 1959 UCD became a general campus. So the question is what defination of campus is the one being used? A campus can just be a collection of buildings or it can have a different meaning. Perhaps it would be best to change the sentance in question to state that UCD is the 2nd oldest UC facility. Mikemill (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about UC campuses. UC Davis = 1959. UCLA = 1905. UC Davis is not the second oldest campus. For many years after 1905, it was still a part of Berkeley. 70.133.68.121 (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, since you're confused by it, chances are others will be too. Just explain in the "founded" area, and if curious, they can compare to the UCLA page. Don't need to put it in the article.
It's fine as is. The dates on the right explain it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.68.121 (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
It is significant to note both dates, because although the campus became a UC in 1959, it was developing ever since 1905. You can't just ignore 54 years of development. During those 54 years, it was a UC campus (UC Berkeley), and therefore the claim of 2nd oldest UC may be justified, even if it was officially independent in 1959 (i.e. name change from UC Berkeley to UC Davis). PSCSBS (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but if you want to go back in time BEFORE the date of official UC campus establishment (i.e., 1959 for Davis and 1919 for UCLA), then UCLA is still older because it was founded in 1881 as the State Normal School at Los Angeles. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Note that we're referring to campus age. The agricultural campus of UC Berkeley (now UC Davis) is an older UC campus than UCLA. The State Normal School at Los Angeles was not a campus within the UC system. UC Berkeley University Farm was a UC campus since 1905, just part of the UC Berkeley campus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PSCSBS (talk • contribs) 15:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Colleges and Schools"

Next debate item is whether or not "schools" should be capitalized in the header. Per Manual of Style it doesn't appear that it should be as schools in is not a proper noun. Mikemill (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that I tried to engage the anonymous editor who opposed this edit in discussion but he or she had not yet replied on his or her Talk page. --ElKevbo (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
It says to follow standard English rules. When it's a title, "and", etc. is not capitalized, but everything else is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.68.121 (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Please show exactly where it says that. Because in the Section headings part of the manual of style it says:
Capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest lower case. Thus "Rules and regulations", not "Rules and Regulations".
Which means it should be "Colleges and schools" not "Colleges and Schools". Mikemill (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the normal Wikipedia style, per WP:MOS, is 'Colleges and schools.' Editors who don't think this is correct should be prepared to give evidence for their position, based on the usual practices at *Wikipedia* which may not be the same as what they see elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
If you were writing an essay, with the title of "rules and regulations", this is how it would be typed: "Rules and Regulations" Reverted until evidence is shown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.198.150 (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
We've provided multiple links to the correct section of Wikipedia's Manual of Style. If you have a problem with the MOS, take it up on the appropriate Talk page, not here. Continuing to make this change in the face of (a) a clear consensus and (b) the Manual of Style is disruptive and unacceptable. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Please respond to my above point, until then, your changes WILL be reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.25.186 (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Evidence has been provided in terms of a direct quote from the wikipedia manual of style. At this point you are acting as a vandal and not as a useful editor. Mikemill (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

UCD Seal

I reverted the seal change but I wanted to get some other opinions.

Original Seal Changed Seal

I compared them to the seals listed on the UCD Logos, Seals, and Marks page and found the original to be a much closer representation. Mikemill (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Uncensored410 has been trying to replace the current high-quality color SVG with a low-quality JPEG alternative. Both are official logos as listed on http://identitystandards.ucdavis.edu/ , but the colored logo is in line with other UC wiki pages, such as UC Berkeley. PSCSBS (talk) 09:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

"major"

I'm going to remove this word from the lead again. The "major" thing, while I'm sure it's being added in good faith, is unsupported by a citation and is potentially misleading to people unfamiliar with the US higher education system. Compare the leads of the articles for other large American universities, such as Ohio State University and the University of Minnesota, neither of which are described as "major" in this way. Townlake (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Peacockery & Boosterism

This article has perhaps some of the most egregious instances of peacockery and boosterism as any I've encountered on a university. Words like "world-renowned", "prestigious", "praised", "world-class" have absolutely no place in an encyclopedia article, please leave this marketing-ese for the admissions pamphlets. Furthermore, there is a significant amount of missing information and sections that need to be expanded which I've indicated with templates on the page. Please use featured articles like University of Michigan, Duke University, and Texas A&M as examples to strive for, not the glossy handouts available from the admissions office. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because you disagree, does not mean you are right. In fact, prestigious and world-class are adjectives that are not merely indicative of opinion, but of the facilities as well. I will revert your changes. 76.20.25.207 (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

However these adjectives are biased; Wikipedia is not. I don't disagree with your statement, I've never even heard of the place this article talks of until now. But neutrality is what should be in the back of everyone's mind when making an edit. Thanks, Marx01 (talk) 05:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Copy to Wikisource still required?

I have removed the {{Copy to Wikisource}} tag. To transwiki the work, there would need to be publication details, and evidence that the work is out of copyright. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Tortilla Claim

I for one have never heard of this (which is in the student life section)

"One less-known student tradition occurs during the commencement ceremonies, where students toss tortillas into the air at the beginning of the ceremony. Tortillas are smuggled into the building under graduation gowns and released into the air after all the graduates have taken their seats.

I graduated from Davis in 2008 and attended all of the commencement ceremonies in 2008 (for the different colleges) and not once was there a tortilla in site. Is this made up? A dead tradition that use to happen a while back? Or still occurs on a regular basis, and just skipped a generation? A quick google search does not document any secondary sources besides this wiki article and an advertisement for a UC Davis watch. If it is true, we need to source it. MATThematical (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC) 

     -The tortilla throwing at graduation happens at UC Santa Barbara. Their school mascot is Gaucho.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.7.86 (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Sustainability

I updated most of the Sustainability section because it had four dead links and some misinformation. The campus has a new Sustainability website, with information that is probably more pertinent than the highlights still included on this page.

Instead of rewriting, I only made corrections and a few updates. I'm posting this here and kept my edits narrow because for the moment I work for the university and therefore may have some COI. Am trying my best to avoid boosterism. Please feel free to correct me or add to this section. Blwrites (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

File:SocialSciencesandHumanitiesBuilding UCDavis.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:SocialSciencesandHumanitiesBuilding UCDavis.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Occupy

I think the present short mention of this is appropriate and just blocked an IP for repeatedly removing it. Having said that I am open to a different consensus being formed here on its retention or exact form. Any takers? --John (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The current length and presence in the History section is appropriate, but giving this incident an entire subsection in history smacks of recentism. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Good point. Please feel free to restructure this. --John (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
It seems uncontroversial, so I did this myself. --John (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

TheBestColleges.org

I have (twice) removed a passage referencing this ranking system. It does not appear to be a commonly used ranking system and editors who want to include it in this (or any other) article should provide evidence that this is a reliable source that is used by others. ElKevbo (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The cited rankings are unequivocally not notable and should not be included. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
The cited rankings have sound methodology as compared to other rankings, and should not be ignored. See their methodology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.5.35 (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not enough that Wikipedia editors like something; it has to have significant cache outside of Wikipedia. What other venues or experts have vouched for these rankings? ElKevbo (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
These data aren't anything new under the sun that USNW&R hasn't largely done for decades. Anyone can pay to have a webpage published and certainly anyone can conduct a statistical analysis re-weighting publicly-available data. The website in question doesn't even pass the smell test for reliability given the lack of any information about the organization doing the analysis, preponderance of links to for-profit college, and various other linkspam to miscellaneous "Top N" lists. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I didn't realize that they had sponsored links to University of Phoenix, etc. That puts their credibility in question, sorry for the inconvenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.5.35 (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Cherry picking rankings

Despite being reverted by multiple editors and asked to discuss his or her edits, an editor has repeatedly changed the rankings in this article (e.g. this edit) to (a) artificially inflate the Forbes rankings by only including the most favorable comparisons and omitting others and (b) remove the QS World ranking entirely. As he or she has refused to discuss these edits, I can only surmise that these edits are an attempt to make the university look as good as possible in violation of WP:NPOV. ElKevbo (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

2011/2012 Rankings

User 67.161.160.73 and Sak10016 are intentionally changing and removing rankings to make the school look better. The rankings that seem to urk them are those of Forbes and QS. Please advise. Ferocious frankie (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As noted in the section immediately above this one, I agree that those (undiscussed and unjustified) removals are a problem. ElKevbo (talk) 06:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, user 31.220.204.66/31.220.204.6 has been repeated reverting edits to make the school seem prestigious in the lead, instead being objective. Phrases like "UC Davis is ranked as one of the top 10 public universities in the nation, and consistently ranks amongst the best universities in the world." have no place in a lead, and needs to be removed. See UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD wiki pages to see how other campuses are worded more properly. There is a separate rankings section already in this article, which gives a more complete list of rankings of UC Davis, not just cherry picked ones that only show it placing in top 10 public, etc.Yankeesfan10023 (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality, Boosterism, and Peacockery (yet again)

The latest infractions are coming from user 31.220.204.66/31.220.204.6, who has been repeated reverting edits to make the school seem prestigious in the lead. Phrases like "UC Davis is ranked as one of the top 10 public universities in the nation, and consistently ranks amongst the best universities in the world." should have no place in a lead, and needs to be removed in order for an objective article. See UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD's wiki pages to see how other campuses are worded more properly. There is a separate Rankings section already in this article, which gives a more complete list of rankings of Davis, not just cherry picked ones that only show it placing in top 10 public, etc. It is very common for universities to be subject to this sort of neutrality edit wars on wikipedia, but Davis seems to forever be problematic. Yankeesfan10023 (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Users Askedview1, Robinsoncano, and Yankeesfan10023 are likely sock puppet accounts for the same person, and are repeatedly vandalizing the UC Davis wikipedia entry by deleting sourced content rather than incorporating into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.220.204.35 (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Cherry picking

Regarding this statement in the article lead: "UC Davis has been ranked as one of the top 10 public universities in the nation." - not only is this statement not very encyclopedic (see other UC's and "top" universities: they don't have such wording), there are just as many rankings that DON'T list UC Davis so high. Either qualify the statements with clauses like "...ranked by US News as one of..." etc., or get rid of it altogether. Robinsoncano (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe it meets the requirements of WP:UNIGUIDE by noting only one ranking in the lead but does not violate WP:BOOSTERISM. The USN&WR rankings are somewhat controversial on Wikipedia, but this is a good topic for discussion as the content has been going back and forth a lot. 72Dino (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I can concede to leaving one ranking--be it USNWR or Washington Monthly--in the lead. (I still think an ideal university wiki will leave that for the Rankings section, unless it is something like Harvard that consistently ranks #1 on nearly all of them each year. But, if there is a consensus to leave USNWR and/or WM in there, so be it.) However, if we leave just one ranking in there, then that is where I believe we should also list WHO ranked it. To simply say UCD "has been ranked as..." is using weasel words. As IP 31.220.204.xx has constantly been reverting it to blanket statements claiming UCD is a "top 10" school, that leads me to believe 31.220.204.xx is only interested in promoting the university to make it look good. On the other hand, the Rankings section of the article seems pretty adequate in all its objective information. I think the lead should reflect the same degree of factual objectivity.Robinsoncano (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I don't have a problem with removing the ranking from the lead (nor do I have a problem keeping it), BUT I think it should be discussed here by others first to make sure there is a consensus. That was difficult to do via edit summaries. 72Dino (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
72Dino: Fair, I will hold back on being as trigger-happy on the reverts and undo's. I am okay with leaving the article as-is for the moment, with the template/tag messages in place, until consensus is reached. For the record, I am in favor of removing the ranking from the lead. UC Berkeley and UCLA--both campuses that are typically regarded by almost everyone as "higher" than UC Davis--do not list boosted ranking info in their leads.Robinsoncano (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Robinsoncano: You have been using several sock puppet accounts to remove any content that reflects positively on the university (Askedview1, Robinsoncano, and Yankeesfan10023). You believe we should list who ranked it, that is the purpose of a citation. Interested parties can click the little numbers at the end of the sentence to see who ranked UC Davis as a top-10 public university. I am in favor of keeping the ranking in the lead as-is, especially if it is allowed by WP:UNIGUIDE. Qualifying it as a US News ranking is redundant as it is already cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.220.204.54 (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
User 31.220.204.xx, I have not edited the article in any way to make the school look bad. I have only edited it to be factual, neutral, and objective. You OTOH seem only interested in making the school look good. I believe the lead is currently inviolation of Wikipedia:UNIGUIDE#Neutral_point_of_view. If you cite college and university rankings, be precise and honest. Refactoring rankings (71st nationally according to the source, but 2nd among colleges in the state) to boost the score constitutes original research and is not permitted. Claims that an institution "ranks highly" or is "highly exclusive" are just as vague as claims that it is "prestigious" and "excellent." Rankings should be neutrally worded without modifiers or disclaimers, represent a comprehensive cross-section of rankings by national and international publications, be limited to a single section in the article, and be reported as numeric values with years and verifiable sources. In the lead, do not use rankings to synthesize an image of the institution, whether good or bad. Give one factual statement summarising overall "most recent" rankings obtained in key surveys (for example, "In 2010, institution 'A' has been ranked #3 by The Economist, #5 by The New York Times and #8 by Financial Times."). In the lead, do not give the sub factor rankings obtained in each survey (for example, details like "ranked #x in placements" or "ranked #3 in research" should not be given in lead at all). Claiming it ranks in top ten among publics is an example. Either list its overall national rank and the publication that gives it that rank, or not at all. I vote not at all. Robinsoncano (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not refactoring rankings, and it's not original research. USNWR releases a list of rankings for public universities, which is what is cited. Please do your research before making accusations. Again, it is redundant to say "according to USNWR" when there is already a citation pointing to USNWR. Since 2010, USNWR has ranked UC Davis as one of the top 10 public universities in the nation. That is a fact, and is verified by the two citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.220.204.54 (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Of course it is refactoring rankings. USNWR ranks UC Davis as 38th nationally, which should be the proper gauge. Why do you want to use the refactored public universities ranking? To make a stronger wiki, or so you can engage in boosterism and call UCDavis a top 10 school?Robinsoncano (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I personally have an affiliation with UCD and it is not in my own personal interest to make it look bad. I only wish for the wiki to be of quality. Having statements of high rankings in the lead, even if true, is academic boosterism by way of selective rankings. Those visitors interested in UCDavis' rankings can simply go to the Rankings subsection, which is of pretty high quality. Having the statement on being top 10 among publics according to USNWR since 2010 is a quite transparent attempt at making the university look good, and diminishes the quality of the the wiki. Not to mention, it also potentially harms the image of UCD; what other university wiki puts claims of top 10 public/private rankings in their lead? Ok, maybe Harvard does, but that's a troubled wiki itself. Robinsoncano (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

As can be seen from the above, the exact wording of UC Davis' ranking in the lead is a subject of contention. Therefore, I propose we simply remove it. This wouldn't lessen the quality of the wiki; very few other university wikis have it. 72Dino and I do not object to removing the sentence altogether.Robinsoncano (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, USNWR ranks UC Davis 38th nationally. In a separate list, they rank UC Davis 9th among public universities. It is not refactoring the rankings if USNWR releases rankings for public universities. It is simply citing USNWR list of public university rankings in their original form. See the citation. Refactoring requires changing something from its original form, which I have not done. Wikipedia guidelines allow for one ranking in the lead, and I vote to leave this one in because it is the most descriptive of UCD's standing as a public research university. Additionally, I think it is poor form to speak on behalf of a moderator. 72dino clearly said that in this case, UC Davis is a top-10 public university and therefore the contested sentence fits within Wikipedia's guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.220.204.54 (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
But isn't USNWR's national ranking far more noteworthy than public universities only? My question for you, 31.220.204.xx, is why should a ranking of public university rankings be the one to use, when there is a far more meaningful national university ranking from the same publication? Or, for that matter, why use USNWR's in particular at all? There are many other reputable ranking publications, Forbes and ARWU, to name a few. Is it because USNWR's places it highest? Obviously that is why you choose it. Isn't that Academic Boosterism? Yes it is. And even so, why not just say number 9 public school, which is what it is? Obviously, UCD is not a no.1 or 2 or 3 public; it is ninth. Why is it so important for you to call it a "top 10" school? After all, the guide explicitly suggests rankings be reported as numeric values with years. Yes, I understand UCD is a top-10 public school according to USNWR. Yes, I see the citation. But it is still academic boosterism, and it reflects poorly on the university's wiki. The attempt is pretty transparent to anybody reading the wiki. Robinsoncano (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed on all counts. Further, the description that was in the article wasn't even accurate. First, it should be clear that US News and World Report produced the ranking instead of leaving it nebulous and undefined. Second, the ranking was only valid among the "national universities" category created by USN&WR. Once the ranking is fully and accurately described, it's clear that it's ridiculous and doesn't belong in the lead. ElKevbo (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate an editor like ElKevbo, who is well-experienced in editing university articles, participating in the discussion. He has removed the content and that appears to be a consensus, even though the IP editor may or may not disagree still. Thanks for the discussion on the talk page, 72Dino (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Recentism

The item about the 2011 Occupy movement protest and firing of the campus policeman seems trivial to include in the more than 100-year history of the university without more substance. Were there protests during the Vietnam War? Protests related to civil rights? or the American Indian Movement, which was very active on the West Coast? So what if this event was covered internationally - nearly everything is these days because the machine is hungry for 24-hour news. Now that it's 4 years later, I don't think this event is singularly important enough to include, even if it was mentioned by more than one article. If it were to be included with student activism on other topics and part of a broader coverage, maybe. Were there Occupy protests on other UC campuses? How did this one relate to those? How many students were involved? There should be more to say than it happened. It prompted more protests, an investigation and a firing, but that is still limited.Parkwells (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

By all means, add new information to the project on these related topics should they interest you. However, that the article is incomplete isn't a good reason to make it even more incomplete by removing the encyclopedic information which it already has, per WP:PRESERVE. -- Kendrick7talk 00:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Historical admissions info

TDJankins is edit warring to include a subsection labeled "Historic Admissions" that has only two sentences with the average high school GPA and SAT score of students who enrolled in 1994 and 1995. I don't understand the value of having this information especially when it's limited to just two years. In any case, it's certainly not something that he or she shouldn't be edit warring to insert into this article without any discussion whatsoever. ElKevbo (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow... I'll just copy and paste Kendrick's passage from immediately above:
By all means, add new information to the project on these related topics should they interest you. However, that the article is incomplete isn't a good reason to make it even more incomplete by removing the encyclopedic information which it already has, per WP:PRESERVE.--TDJankins (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
That's not a very helpful response. Please explain why this information from two years, without any context or explanation, is helpful for readers. ElKevbo (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

UC Davis Tries That 'One Trick' to Purge Its Reputation for Pepper-Spraying Student Activists

https://reason.com/blog/2016/04/14/uc-davis-tries-that-one-trick-to-purge-i/print

Key quote:

"UC Davis would like to put the matter behind them. But instead they've managed to figure out how to give themselves yet another round of bad publicity. They have spent thousands of dollars trying to game the internet to try to hide the incident or reduce the chance that people looking up information about the college bring up the incident. The Sacramento Bee discovered through records requests that the college paid at least $175,000 to try to improve its online reputation in the wake of the pepper-spraying incident"

We need to keep an eye on this page to make sure that this has not affected the NPOV of the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, several editors have been caught page scrubbing and censoring within the last year per the above two talk items.--TDJankins (talk) 00:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on University of California, Davis. 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}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Request withdrawn, WP:SNOW, WP:SOCKs, etc. Grayfell (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this addition representing the sources accurately? Are the sources reliable? Is the addition noteworthy and encyclopedic? Eden5 (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it is a complete misrepresentation of the sources. None call this a ban, but in fact are clear that the change makes the flying of the flag optional, rather than mandatory.Nasty (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree. All the articles even state that it isn't an outright ban. In addition, the articles don't mention anything about "written permission". Eden5 (talk) 07:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I believe that Franklin18818 is a sockpuppet of Gal4xe3. Nasty (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
No doubt, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oppulence76. Grayfell (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Agree Nasty (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove and Speedy close (1) Addition completely misrepresents its corresponding sources; not a ban, but a voluntary removal, and written permission is not required at all, (2) Addition is very trivial for an encyclopedic audience, and (3) Author of addition engaged in sockpuppetry and it's evident that the author wished to stir the pot rather than edit constructively. I would personally close this RFC, but it wouldn't be right of me to close an RFC I opened. Eden5 (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:RFCEND, you are free to withdraw the question, which would be an appropriate way to close this. The originating edit was so messy and bad-faith that starting over from scratch would be the way to address the underlying issues. I'm going to go ahead and close this as WP:SNOW. Any non-blocked editor can revert if necessary. Grayfell (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on University of California, Davis. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Endowment Field in the Infobox

I noticed that there existed some controversy over what Davis's total endowment consists of, and I think the primary confusion on the part of those pushing for the $398.3 million amount is that they are only looking at funds within "The University of California, Davis Foundation". However, based on the endowment reports (especially the second source which describes asset designation more in detail), which I have included as sources in the infobox, both the "foundation" endowment assets, as well as the "regents" endowment assets "for the benefit of the campus" are collectively classified under "Total Campus Endowments". In other words, UC Davis's total endowment, as classified by the overarching University of California, as well as the Davis campus itself, consists of both sets of assets. The 'NACUBO' source previously included separates the "Davis Foundation" assets from total endowment assets designated to the university, and consequently, does not reflect the entire Davis endowment. Please refer to the official University of California endowment reports for more information, which lists Davis's endowment at approximately $1.1 billion. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PSCSBS (talk • contribs) 03:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

First, please review WP:BRD; you're encouraged to edit boldy but you're not encouraged to edit war with others to preserve or retain your preferred edits. Second, the NACUBO data are provided by the reporting institutions and done so in a consistent manner so that all reporting institutions use the same definitions which enables readers to understand institutions' endowments in context; any separating of funding pools are thus being done by the university itself or the system when they report to NACUBO. Third, we are incredibly wary of Wikipedia editors using primary sources to second guess experts and I'm particularly wary in this specific area that very complex, highly technical, and very often misunderstood by lay people. This is one of the primary reasons why we make such widespread use of this source across many articles. ElKevbo (talk) 03:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
First, as stated in the edit comments the reversion was not due to edit warring - it was due to poorly sourced (i.e. source led to 404 error) NACUBO data. Thank you for the reminder that we should be editing boldly to remove such material. Second, there is no indication that NACUBO is a more credible source than the primary UC endowment report - NACUBO does not appear to have any credible presence on the internet (not even a Wikipedia page), whereas the UC system has a documented 150 year track record of being one of the most prestigious and credible institutions in the world. Third, I have been unable to find any expert source claiming that the $398M figure you cite is more credible than what is reported in the official UC report and independent journalistic institutions like US News & World Report. PSCSBS (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

UCD Seal

Please use the colored seal from UC Davis website: http://marketingtoolbox.ucdavis.edu/visual-identity/logos/seal.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.195.99.209 (talk) 11:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I will fix it later this evening. Please leave it in the article for now. Corky 22:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not uploading the informal seal; the standard here is the formal seal. The seal comes in a variety of colors, so the one we have used currently if fine. Corky 22:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
The old one is not the "formal" seal. There is no such thing as the "formal" seal. If you're really talking about the formal official seal, then it is the one that is used by UC Regents (http://brand.universityofcalifornia.edu/guidelines/the-uc-seal.html). None of the University of California campuses can claim their own version of the seal "official/formal." Every UC has their own version of the UC seal and are considered to be "unofficial" and "informal". The informal seal that I linked before is the updated version of the informal seal.
Please do not revert back just because the current one is "fine." All information should be kept up-to-date. 128.195.97.3 (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
The "unofficial seal" is the more commonly used seal unless you can prove otherwise. All UC schools use this seal (with modifications that fit each school), and should therefore be used here. Corky 21:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
The "unofficial seal" is the "informal seal." The word "unofficial" is synonymous with "informal." Please read what I said. You clearly don't even know what you're talking about and the lack of deductive reasoning is showing. Furthermore, the current seal is not the one of the "campus website." On the website, it also clearly states this: "The informal seal can be used on manufactured items like clothing, keepsakes and branded gift items. It should never appear on communications relating to campus business including stationary, presentations, event banners, Web sites, etc. For more information on the use of the informal seal, please contact Trademark Licensing at trademarks@ucdavis.edu."[1]

References

  1. ^ http://marketingtoolbox.ucdavis.edu/visual-identity/logos/seal.html

Profit or non-profit

It's not clear if UCDavis is a profit or nonprofit university.

That needs to be plainly stated. 2600:8800:785:9400:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

US Rankings

please update all University of California and California State University rankings. This years rankings are at the us ranking page. https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges

Alumnus to include photos?

The list of notable alumnus is growing. For some reason, their photos have been included and it's taking up a lot of space. Should this list include photos? I've not seen it before on other post-secondary article's page. Ifnord (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

No, there would be too many of them. Also, those people with public-relations agents or adoring spouses would crowd out the others. No sense in it. Unless we get objection, we should be bold and take all of them out. Thanks for bringing it up. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_California,_Davis/Archive_1&oldid=1175394609"