Talk:University of California, Los Angeles/Archive 2

UCLA navigational template
I've been redoing all the other UCs' navigational templates in a common style (see User:Dynaflow/Crap-I-Made for a full gallery of the other UCs' templates). But UCLA's template, almost alone amongst the UCs when I started my navbox crusade, wasn't and continues to not be an eyesore -- and is in fact quite elegant. In light of the superb aesthetic sensibilities of the current UCLA navbox's designers, I'm not going to bother revamping the thing unless I get specific requests to do so.

versus --Dynaflow  18:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I prefer your versions; the extant UCLA box seems just functional, as it should be, but the new versions are much more cohesive and don't seem to be as much a huge block. ALTON .ıl  05:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Alrighty, it shall be done. --Dynaflow  05:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've now replaced the old template with a new version. I did a rather brutal crop-job on the Powell Library photo because I don't intend for it to stay.  I would like to replace it with a thin, vertical picture of Ackerman's roofline from below and across the plaza, or perhaps with a vertical shot of Powell from a more-oblique angle (you can probably tell I'm not exactly a pro with these highfalutin' photography terms).  I need someone else to take those photos, though, because at the moment I am up in Oregon, and when I get back to California, I won't be going south of Santa Cruz at all soon if I can help it.  Is there anyone with a good photographer's eye who would be willing to take a couple good, mercenary snaps for the navbox?  See Cal's navbox (above) for the approximate dimensions the photo should have.  --Dynaflow  06:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Admissions
UCLA is among the two most selective schools in the UC system. 76.176.83.107 edited on 10 December that UCLA is one of the three most selective schools by citing UCSD among the top three, which is not an inherently false statement, but it implies that UCLA is ranked third in admission rates behind UCSD and Cal, which is not true. It seems like a way of mentioning UCSD when it's not really relevant.

Need documentation Hechung 23:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

UCLA and Cal are very close in admission rates, which necessitates the wording "one of the two most selective schools in the UC system." They both admit in the mid-20th percentile (23.6% and 25.5% respectively), while the next most selective school (UCSD) admits 45.7%, a significant difference. See the data here: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/undergrad_adm/selecting/camp_profiles/camp_profiles_ucla.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.67.233.206 (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Should this year's stats be mentioned? The acceptance rate was about 9 percent, by my calculations. — Emiellaiendiay 05:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Mmm I don't think it was anywhere near 9%. It did drop from last year, but I don't think by that much. Where did you get your figures? Cheers. --DanielNuyu 04:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

New info has just come out @ http://newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=7826 Contrary to the current entry, "UCLA admitted 11,837 prospective freshmen for fall 2007 out of an applicant pool of 50,729." (entry says 50,600 some). This sets the current admission rate to 23% (lower than Cal!). To be updated: incoming freshman class has an avg GPA of 4.3 with SAT of 2,007 (heh, this number is very fitting).


 * Shhh, you must keep it NPOV. ALTON .ıl  06:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

keep at the same name, per the discussion below. Yonatan talk 22:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC) → UCLA — more commonly referred to as UCLA (even according to the article), like CNN. —Yonatan talk 00:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Oppose - I search for UCLA in the search bar, and the redirect is fine for me. Truly, I have not once referred to the name by anything other than "UCLA", but I think it is more attractive and consensual to have the article at the school's official title. ALTON .ıl  00:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You position isn't supported by WP:MOS IIRC, especially seeing how you're admitting you only refer to it as UCLA. Yonatan talk 01:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that it says to use the most common name. However, it also says to be consistent with title names in a series, and since other UCs such as Merced and San Fransisco do not use abbreviated forms, neither should LA. Additionally, it would seem that under Prefer spelled-out phrases to abbreviations UCLA would fit as an acronym almost exclusively known only by its abbreviation and is widely known and used in that form, but the bullet also points out that USA should never be used for United States of America. Lastly (and it's a weak point but applies), University of California, Berkeley is almost always called "Cal", and even their official logo, favicon and self-references on their main site, and their athletic teams use "Cal" exclusively, but the article should never be renamed that, and I doubt anyone would propose that change. ALTON .ıl  02:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - See my comment below. --Dynaflow   babble  00:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Perhaps - just perhaps, not supported by any stats - the city of Los Angeles is more commonly called "LA", so shall we move the article titled "Los Angeles" to "LA" ?? Perhaps the country named the United States is more commonly called or written as "the US", so shall we move the article titled "United States" to "US"? As long as "UCLA" is just an abbreviation to the full name and the full name isn't as clumsy as "Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport", we should keep "University of California, Los Angeles" as it is. --supernorton 10:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose UCLA obviously should redirect; the main article should have the proper, spelled-out name. Mangoe 15:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The name of the school is "University of California, Los Angeles", and everyone knows that. "UCLA" is just an abbreviation of that name. ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 16:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

Moving the article to "UCLA" would take it out of line with the consistent naming conventions for institutions that have been used across Wikipedia. It would also lose continuity with the naming conventions used for the other UCs. The practice on university articles has been to use the full, official name as the article title and then use redirects to directly channel in searches looking for other common names. To use a recently-in-the-news example, the link for "Virginia Tech" is an immediate redirect to the article titled after the full, legal name of the of institution, event though it's so much of a mouthful that no one commonly uses it and I can't remember all of it. The Cal Poly schools' articles are set up in the same way. Cal Poly Pomona is at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, but also with a redirect from the more commonly-used name.

You also have the examples of USC and Caltech, two nearby schools which are also almost never referred to by their full names, which still have their articles at University of Southern California and California Institute of Technology, respectively. This even extends, as far as I have seen, to other language Wikipedias. Peking University (Beijing Daxue/北京大学), as commonly known by its "abbreviated" title of Beida/北大 in Chinese as UCLA is known by its abbreviation in English, still has its article at its full name. Todai (the University of Tokyo), in the same situation, name-wise, as UCLA and Beida, seems to be done in the same way on the Japanese Wikipedia: 東京大学.

As long as "UCLA" is simply an abbreviation for "the University of California, Los Angeles," the article title should stay pegged to the latter name. In other words, until the UC Regents strip the school of the name University of California, Los Angeles and officially make it UCLA (in the same way the Texas state legislature stripped Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University of its full name and made it Texas A&M (with the "A&M" literally not officially standing for anything), then the article title should stay how it is. --Dynaflow   babble  01:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion
It strikes me that UCR has 15 archives and UCLA has only 1. Is there a reason for the massive difference? <font color="#808080" size="-1">ALTON <font color="#808080">.ıl  06:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's mainly due to the mind-bending amount of trolling, sock-puppet warfare, and other bits of miscellaneous strife that have been attracted to that article, for some unfathomable reason, like white cat hair to a black sweater. <font color="#285991">--Dynaflow   <font color="#285991">babble  09:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, that evades me. UCLA editors must be much better at resolving disputes ;) <font color="#808080" size="-1">ALTON <font color="#808080">.ıl  05:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
I would like to propose the addition of an External Link to the UCLA page that points to the old Bruin Life yearbooks. This is an official site, sanctioned by UCLA that provides an archive of old yearbooks. The Bruin Life yearbook has been the official record of history and tradition at UCLA since the 1919-1920 school year, when the Southern Branch of the University of California became UCLA. It provides more history on student government, athletics, alumni, etc than any other publication. I have already been through this discussion at the Cal Berkeley site where the external link was approved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbmichael (talk • contribs) 23:22, May 29, 2007
 * That site requires registration, does it not? --ElKevbo 04:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I have been able to look through a couple without registering. Regardless, is this a topic necessary to have in that section? <font color="#808080" size="-1">ALTON <font color="#808080">.ıl  22:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Universities
I just wanted to invite UCLA to WikiProject Universities. Not a member of this wikipedia group, i don't feel that is proper for me to do so. Oldag07 03:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, My school's official title is Texas A&M University. we changed are name from the The Agriculture and Mechanical College of Texas to name Texas A&M University Oldag07 03:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind Oldag07 23:39, 8 June 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. szyslak 21:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fix-its
Just a couple things I caught periodically scanning this page. One, in the rivalry section, it says USC has won 35 Pacific Coast Conference Championships... I have to think they are referring to a collective count of PCC and Pac-10 Championships, so maybe that can be written better but I really don't have time to research the split right now or determine if this is a factually accurate statement. Any football buffs want to help here?

Secondly, I made a minor change to the count of UCLA stores open in China. The article said 5 had opened, but I'm confident the number is much greater. When I was in China this past summer, I actually found a website that listed them all, but I have forgotten how to find this website - not to mention that it is Chinese. Anyone want to do some digging around? I believe the actual number is between 15 and 30. Decafpenguin 09:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC) (whoops forgot to sign the first time)


 * Found it. One person's revered alma mater is another person's designer brand.  <font color="#285991">--Dynaflow   <font color="#285991">babble  15:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Awesome, thanks a lot Dynaflow! Decafpenguin (talk) 09:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Notable people
Hows about we cut the list of "notable people" altogether and leave only the indisputable Nobel laureates and Fellows or such? There is no way we can ever get a stable version if people come by and do drive-by additions to the list. <font color="#808080" size="-1">ALTON <font color="#808080">.ıl  06:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Amerique <sup style="color:darkred;">dialectics 18:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That would work, though another option would be to delete all of the people and simply leave the link to the List of University of California, Los Angeles people. That's drastic so let's try Alton's suggestion first. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Great, and done. Please clean it up. It would probably look cleaner with Will's suggestion, but I don't even know how important the section is. Is it necessary even to have that section, and/or could it be integrated in, say, Academics? <font color="#808080" size="-1">ALTON <font color="#808080">.ıl  22:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The list includes both faculty and alumni so "Academics" might not be the best section. "See also" is a possibility. ·:· Will Beback  ·:·  —Preceding comment was added at 22:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I don't have a problem with that. <font color="#808080" size="-1">ALTON <font color="#808080">.ıl  23:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Although this isn't a policy or guideline, per WikiProject Universities, a section is usually reserved for some discussion of "noted people." I think the current information there is adequate. edited a bit. Amerique <sup style="color:darkred;">dialectics 23:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

hey
¿what are the majors the ucla have?


 * Look here. Amerique <sup style="color:darkred;">dialectics 06:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Undergraduate Nursing program at UCLA
Hi, this article erroneously lists Nursing among UCLA's undergraduate programs. None of the UC schools offer undergraduate nursing degrees. UCLA and UCSF both have schools of nursing, but both offer only graduate degrees. -submitted by a UCLA grad (BA, 1990 and MLS, 1992) who is now working on a BS in Nursing at another university

69.219.227.34 (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Look here Amerique <sup style="color:darkred;">dialectics 00:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Overenrolled
IT needs to be mentioned that the university screwed the pooch and over enrolled undergrads. And this is at the time that the funding to the UC system is Cut. I know that it mentions that they only accepted 8000 students for the 2008-2009 acatemic year, but emphasis should be put on the overcrowde...--169.232.119.242 (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll look around for a news article. Amerique <sup style="color:darkred;">dialectics 00:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

UCLA School of the Arts and Architecture
While the main UCLA wiki mentions UCLA School of the Arts and Architecture. There is no article on this school anywhere on Wikipedia. I know we are not the most popular school on campus, but it is definiteley worth integrating into the UCLA schools. The school consists of the following majors: Design | Media Arts, World Arts and Cultures, Art, Architecture and Urban Design, Music, and Ethnomusicology. I would like there to be more presence of this school on the web, especially as I am on my way to be an alumni.

Thus I have started a page here. This is my first time adding anything on Wikipedia, so sorry if the article is primitive, I used the Engineering school page as a template. I just wanted at least something there, if someone searches.

Any help or contributions to the page are appreciated. I'll try, if I ever get in the mood.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewaxgrid (talk • contribs) 08:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Great! Now we need a picture or two. Ucla90024 (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate the effort put into to this, the updated article looks fantastic. I think I have some great photos of the Broad Art Center and EDA, as well as additional information to the article that I can write in, if applicable. Thewaxgrid (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. Now we can add additional information. Ucla90024 (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It might be interesting to talk about the development of UCLA's Dance department into "World Arts and Cultures" in this respect. There is not a lot of information on this, but here are some related articles:


 * http://dailybruin.com/archives/id/2294/
 * http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1083/is_11_78/
 * http://articles.latimes.com/1998/jan/15/news/mn-8483
 * http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1083/is_3_74/ai_59870981


 * Amerique <sup style="color:darkred;">dialectics 04:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

userbox
Is there a UCLA user box?? If so please tell me! Thanks-- Penubag  06:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You can find my retooled UC userbox series at Userboxes/Education/United_States. <font color="#285991">--Dynaflow   <font color="#285991">babble  06:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec) Yes, it's . <font color="#808080" size="-1">ALTON <font color="#808080">.ıl  07:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys! -- Penubag  08:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I made a UCLA userbox too; you can find it at Template:User BRUIN ALUM. It uses parser functions and it features a more familiar (though not official) UCLA color palette [ + "described by UCLA's graphics standards" ]. Depending on your preference, it might look like:

or like:

As a bonus, the page offers superior documentation! Newportm (talk) 05:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The previous bright blue looks better. Ucla90024 (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've changed the blue on User ucla back to the official smoggy-sky blue, per http://www.identity.ucla.edu/graphicstandards/UCLAStandardsManual0904.pdf. Since the yellow-on-blue pattern seems to be verboten now for the logo, I've changed the "UCLA" in the left-side bit to white-on-blue (see page 10 of the graphic standards guide), like User BRUIN ALUM has it.  <font color="#285991">--Dynaflow   <font color="#285991">babble  22:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wooden Center

 * No need to have a picture of the back of the John Wooden Center. Of 4 views, we have to take a picture from the back, where the offices are located, no the front entrance from the Morgan Center or from the book store. Why? Ucla90024 (talk) 08:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The current pic of the front is unclear and doesnt show much. The picture that I have added shows a larger part of the building and the part where the actual gym is located. Nikkul (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the gym entrance is directly opposit of Morgan Center. That would be a better picture. And the front by the bear shows interesting architectural design. The back doesn't do anything, not even architecture wise. Ucla90024 (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Established
This is the subject of a minor edit conflict. A school was established in 1881. The school became a branch of UC Berkeley in 1919, which is the earliest year that can be placed with the Fiat Lux seal of the University of California for UCLA. The name University of California at Los Angeles was adopted in 1927. It moved campuses to Westwood in 1929. It got a chancellor and became independent from Berkeley in 1951. Group29 (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't even play football until 1919 season. Ucla90024 (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is the important thing ;-) ...though shouldn't it be basketball? --Bobak (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously though, this is interesting because so many schools claim the earliest founding date possible, even when it has nothing to do with higher education. Couple of examples: the University of Delaware claims a founding date in 1743, but at the time was a simple school and didn't become a college until much later (1833); Salem College was founded as the "Little Girls' School".  At least UCLA was a teachers college at the earliest date. --Bobak (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't you like to look young? :) Ucla90024 (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Miriam Dudley Award
There is an scholarship named after a former librarian. This should be included. (Singleton2 (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC))
 * How important is/was this person in the context of the institution? <font color="#285991">--Dynaflow   <font color="#285991">babble  05:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There appear to be several dozen named scholarships for UCLA students. I doubt the Dudley award is any more notable than these other scholarships nor should the UCLA article include a list of scholarships. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

UCLA Electrical Engineering
The "UCLA Electrical Engineering" article should be merged into the "Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science". Why a separate article? Ucla90024 (talk) 04:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge for now, it's a POV article and possibly copyvio, written by one person over 5 hours. <font color="#808080" size="-1">ALTON <font color="#808080">.ıl  08:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I will do so if there is no additional comment. See my note at the talk p. for he department. DGG (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Picture management
There seems to be a conflict about what kind of image to put in the article. There are several available pictures of Royce (Image:RHall.JPG, Image:Royce Hall.jpg, Image:Royce.jpg), and a couple of Powell (Image:Powelllib.JPG, Image:Powlib.JPG, Image:Powell.jpg). We only need one picture in the main article, and others need to be cut. I'm glad that there's such an enthusiasm for taking pictures, but it's a huge campus and there are many things to take pictures of, so we should keep only the most effective to avoid clutter. <font color="#808080" size="-1">ALTON <font color="#808080">.ıl  09:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur. The article is oversaturated with pics of those particular buildings. Meanwhile, it is entirely missing pics of the sculpture garden, Bunche hall, south campus, Ackerman union, the exterior of Pauley Pavilion, etc. Of the pics you listed, I favor keeping Image:RHall.JPG and Image:Powelllib.JPG for this article, and was thinking of suggesting a gallery page for the extras, but WP:Galleries seems to be against galleries in mainspace. Still, we "are encouraged" to attach a working gallery to the UC wikiproject. Amerique <sup style="color:darkred;">dialectics 17:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly, I support those two as well. I mean, I can get some new ones, but enough editors go there to get better ones that what I can take. Interesting contradiction, if that's what you mean by that. <font color="#808080" size="-1">ALTON <font color="#808080">.ıl  23:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I set up a contradiction, but we definitely have an overabundance of some pics and an absence of others. The prepositions don't seem to contradict. I agree with the pics you selected for the article, though. Amerique <sup style="color:darkred;">dialectics 00:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am for the Royce.jpg image. Whats wrong with it??? Nikkul (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not a photographer, so I couldn't tell you accurately, but RHall.JPG has a better angle and wider depth. Also, Royce.jpg has a black bar (lamppost?) across the right. <font color="#808080" size="-1">ALTON <font color="#808080">.ıl  00:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur with Alton. The other pic simply has a more flattering, dramatic perspective. The Royce pic seems to be listing. Actually, if anyone has time, a new shot of Powell without a dark shadow draping over it would be appreciated. Amerique <sup style="color:darkred;">dialectics 00:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It may seem odd, but I think what's happening now is that the sun only rises behind Powell since it faces North and it's winter. A good picture might have to wait. <font color="#808080" size="-1">ALTON <font color="#808080">.ıl  07:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * was going to say, please don't replace clearly great and informative images with representations of other objects, such as a sunny image of Janss steps with a dark image of Wilson plaza. Thanks, Amerique <sup style="color:darkred;">dialectics 18:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to be a wet blanket, but about 50% of the edits to the article since Thursday have been Amerique and Nikkul reverting each other over a couple of pictures. Please stop, and bring the debate back here, where it belongs.  You're going to need to either find a consensus, or someone's going to have to step away and leave the article in The Wrong Version.  <font color="#285991">--Dynaflow   <font color="#285991">babble  02:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure Nikkul is acting in good interests, but I'm reluctant to support his choices because most of the images he is pushing happen to be his. While many are very nice, there are a few that are clearly inferior, and Amerique has explained why in each case. <font color="#808080" size="-1">ALTON <font color="#808080">.ıl  04:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I shot a new pic of Royce the other day, which has a less blazingly blue background than the current image. Is anyone opposed to replacement? <font color="#808080" size="-1">ALTON <font color="#808080">.ıl  07:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That looks great. Any chance you could crop it to take out everything to the left of the prominent tree on the left-hand side?  <font color="#285991">--Dynaflow   <font color="#285991">babble  07:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice pic!   Will Beback    talk    07:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Southern Branch of the University of California
The information in Southern Branch of the University of California is just a very brief version of the history covered in much greater detail in the UCLA article. There's little to merge, really. Perhaps the smaller article should simply be redirected here.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  05:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, do it. <font color="#285991">--Dynaflow   <font color="#285991">babble  06:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Same institution, different names. Merge (assuming redirect from Southern Branch to the UCLA entry). --Quartermaster (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Dickson Plaza
This image is was titled File:Dickinson Plaza.jpg: However User:Kjrogers pointed out that "Dickinson" is a misspelling of "Dickson". But is that the right name at all? The official UCLA map shows something in this location called "Wilson Plaza". To the east, on the plateau, is "Dickson Court". Can anyone verify the right name of the pictured location. I'm fairly certain that those are the "Janss Steps" in the background, meaning the camera is pointed eastward. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that has to be Wilson plaza, with the Janss Steps in the background. Amerique <sup style="color:darkred;">dialectics 14:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * With the distinctive top of Royce Hall on the left, this image is eastward. With Janss Steps (photo) rising in the center, the foreground can only be the plaza between the old Men's Gym and Women's Gym, now respectively called, "Student Activities Center," and "Kaufman Hall."   I don't recall that this plaza had a name when I was there, but the campus map shows Amerique to be correct.  (See )  This image is clearly misnamed; not only should it have been spelled "Dickson" (if it had portrayed Dickson plaza), but the image needs to be renamed, "Wilson Plaza."


 * Look for this title to turn red: File:Dickinson Plaza.jpg and this one to turn blue: File:UCLA-Wilson Plaza.jpg. Newportm (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal with UCLA International Human Rights Law Program
Just seems like the above-mentioned article doesn't need a standalone page. -Falcon8765 (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC) (I corrected the destination article name used in the merge template; at the appropriate time, it will need to be updated to UCLA Law School) Newportm (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to UCLA Law School, not here. Amerique <sup style="color:darkred;">dialectics 04:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with Amerique. Newportm (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree, obviously, as I created the original page. The first two merger proposals were obviously incorrect, but even the third isn’t really appropriate.  Much of the information which applies to the Human Rights Law Program, such as “Category:Human rights organizations” and the involvement of the president of Bosnia, don’t apply to any of the three proposals.

[16:50, 25 July 2009 FlashSheridan]


 * The unsigned post above raises an interesting point about the category. Nevertheless, this merger proposal is about merging to this page.  The unanimous consensus so far (4 out of 4 in a week's time) is that UCLA International Human Rights Law Program should NOT be merged here.  Maybe we can get this merger proposal wrapped up soon.  Though it is jumping the gun here to discuss merger to UCLA School of Law, I note that the program is domeciled at UCLA School of Law and the majority of its faculty and leadership are UCLA School of Law professors.  Merger into UCLA School of Law would be a subsequent merger proposal.  How much time to let pass before concluding that this merger proposal has reached a consensus, then close it? Newportm (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would just fork it to UCLA Law and nom the original for deletion if anyone still cares at this point. Amerique <sup style="color:darkred;">dialectics 16:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and merged it to UCLA School of Law with a redirect at the namespace. Amerique <sup style="color:darkred;">dialectics 17:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I’ve added the attribution to my comment above. And note that there wasn’t a consensus, much less a unanimous one; there were several conflicting proposals, some of them intentionally so.
 * —FlashSheridan (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Boosterism
I don't even know where to start with the lead, egregious examples of academic boosterism are so legion that I can't fathom how to remove them without severely injuring what worthwhile content is there. Basically, why does everything have to be qualified as the most, largest, or best on top of an unnecessary rankings paragraph? I don't think anyone can, would, or should dispute UCLA's notability or reputation, so stop with the superiority complex. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why are you caring about UCLA if you were at MIT? Maybe because of pride, like UCLA Bruins has more NCAA National Championships than any other college in the world. Ucla90024 (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That response is emblematic of the problems identified by Madcoverboy in the article itself. 24.218.26.182 (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

infobox logo removal/inclusion
A discussion regarding logo removal/inclusion that occurred during a recent edit to this article is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

History
The history section of this article, which should be a summary of History of the University of California, Los Angeles, is instead a partial history ending in 1950 with an over-long anecdote. The overall length is good, but it should be more comprehensive. Does anyone want to try writing a short history?  Will Beback   talk    05:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Dance Marathon
I feel like Dance Marathon should not have it's own section in UCLA's history, especially when it is already mentioned in traditions. Seeninator (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
UCLA was founded in 1919 (see footnote 30) and was ranked 16th best in the nation (see note 16). Anyone who inserts any other information is vandalizing the article. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 12:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Most selective
UCLA is now more selective than UCB, and this should be stated in the article see: http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2008/fall_2008_admissions_table_5.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.73.54 (talk) 04:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Does the 0.1% difference really mean anything? Or is this a point of campus pride? Perhaps if you mention UCLA is more selective, you should mention that Berkeley students have higher high school GPAs, composite SAT scores, and ACT scores. My point is that this seems like an inconsequential difference.Vantelimus (talk) 09:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think its necessary to list the actual school its tougher to get into, though you could write that its the "most selective of the UCs" or something to that effect with some citation comparing the acceptance rates like that which you posted. Besides, USC is now more selective than either of those two states. ;-) --Bobak (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, in the article it said "second to UCB" which simply isn't true :P. Bobak, I meant of the UCs.  Adnd Vantelimus, it's not, as it was incorrectly stated in the article that it was second in selectivity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.79.35 (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked into this a little further. The article showing UCLA 0.1% more selective than Berkeley contains the statistics for New California Freshmen only. If you look at the full statistics, Berkeley is still more selective, with an overall admit rate of 21.5% vs. UCLA's overall admit rate of 22.7%. The full stats can be gleaned from and, both of which were found by following the links at the bottom of . It is interesting that when you include out-of-state applicants UCLA's selectivity goes down and Berkeley's goes up. Either UCLA gets better applications from out-of-state students, or they have an institutional bias towards foreign students. BTW, average SAT score at UCLA for 2008 is 2000, whereas Berkeley's is 2034. Vantelimus (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a sentence to the UCLA admissions paragraph noting it is the most selective in the UC system for California in-state applicants. That should cover all bases of the reference-able truth. I'll let someone else decide if it is noteworthy enough of a fact to be included in an encyclopedia. As an aside, all these stats can be used to calculate the the out-of-state admission rates. For UCLA it calculates out to 26.1% -- far less selective than Berkeley's out-of-state admit rate of 18.4%. Vantelimus (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

In the 2009 application season, UCLA's overall acceptance rate was 21.7%, while UC Berkeley's was 26.6% (see http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/undergrad_adm/selecting/camp_profiles/camp_profiles_ucb.html and http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/undergrad_adm/selecting/camp_profiles/camp_profiles_ucla.html). I've updated the first paragraph to reflect this. Kunalmehta (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Rankings in lead
Recent good faith edits to the lead regarding rankings removed some existing text about various  rankings while adding reference a new ranking that was incorrectly attributed to Newsweek instead of Financial Times.

Furthermore, this information in the lead becomes out of sync with detailed rankings in the Rankings section (which was already out of sync even before the aforementioned edits).

Based on guidelines for into text to "summarize the most important points covered in an article", I will move the specific rankings from the lead to the Rankings section. The lead will continue to have the existing sentence "UCLA is consistently ranked high in college and university rankings." This will hopefully make the article easier to maintain, not to mention benefit the reader with a shorter lead and access to accurate rankings details in a single section of the article. Bagumba (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead of this article is an absolute mess. Where one might expect a duly-weighted summary of the article to spend some time discussing the history of the institution, features of the campus, traditions & student life, or athletics, one instead finds three paragraphs of laudatory prose about awards won, vague assertions of consistent and high rankings, money raised, and other superlatives. I've renovated the leads for Harvard University, Caltech, and Northwestern University among others, look to them for just how embarrassing the current lead is. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"Irrelevant and false"

 * ''Eleven Nobel laureates have been affiliated with the university as faculty, researchers, or alumni, 37 have been elected to the National Academy of Sciences, 20 to the National Academy of Engineering, and 97 to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. UCLA is consistently ranked high in college and university rankings. It also ranks among the top 10 schools in the country with the most faculty awards. The faculty is "highly cited" for its research according to the Institute for Scientific Information.

An editor deleted the above material from the introduction, calling it "irrelevant and false". He's done so before. I reverted him once. Should I restore the info again? It's a bit boosterish, but it seems relevant. If it's simply incorrect can we just fix the error and restore it?  Will Beback   talk    09:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Specific count of Nobel laureates and members of sundry national academies bogs down the lead. What about including in the lead the concept of numerous nationally and internationally recognized intellectual leaders' affiliation with UCLA  but leaving these specifics for a later section? –Newportm (talk • contribs) 08:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Alexandra "Ching Chong Ling Long Ting Tong" Wallace did not get expelled
The citation link proves nothing, not to mention it's not even been two days since the original video was uploaded. Taking it down. Overmage (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Controversy section was blanked out by someone with an obvious agenda, considering it's the same vandal that added in the anti-Asian remark. I would put it back in to spite him but I'll leave it to you guys to decide whether or not to put it back in. --Bloodlustkid (talk) 06:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone had posted an unbiased portion of it, yet you refuse to even let that on. Do people refuse to submit to the freedom of speech? We strongly should add this section onto this article. Whoever removed that section, please put it back on or give a logical reason why it should be removed. If no one replies, I will be adding another section to it, except in greater detail. --Fiatlut (talk)

while i was initially confused about the deletion of the alexandra-wallace edits as well, if you look at the them on the article's history tab, they are VERY poorly cited, and the language they used seems, in part, biased. This isn't surprising considering that it's such a controversial issue, but if what we're trying to do here is establish a trusted body of knowledge, such entries have no place here. Since i have some free time, i'll try to make an unbiased, heavily cited edit of the history on alexandra wallace as well.

on a related note, I find it surprising that there's no 'controversy' section. There's absolutely no mention of the taser incident which occured here. Sure, it has it's own wikipedia article, but it's part of the university's history, and i think it should at least, in part, be mentioned here. Xenfreak (talk) 02:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Every large university has numerous incidents like this. A little Youtube kerfuffle hardly seems worth including. If there were a major cheating scandal, a murder, or something like that then it might merit inclusion.   Will Beback    talk    05:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned in the detailed history of UCLA page, but was removed from this page because it was judged not to have significance in the grand scope of the university's history. Neither the taser incident or Alexandra's rant have any effect on the developmental trajectory of UCLA's history. <font color="#808080" size="-1">ALTON <font color="#808080">.ıl  05:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you saying it shouldn't be on this article or it shouldn't have an article at all? I'm fine with the former but with the latter, you're going to have to try and make a convincing explanation why we have articles for Epic Beard Man and Chris Crocker. --69.108.137.221 (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact we have here is what's called a burden of proof, and right now you have the burden. I did not make those articles, nor am I responsible for crusading for or against their existence. See WP:OTHERCRAP. <font color="#808080" size="-1">ALTON <font color="#808080">.ıl  05:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 69.108.137.221 has been blocked for block evasion (User:Fiatlut). See: Sockpuppet investigations/Theserialcomma. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This same debate is happening at History of the University of California, Los Angeles, where the same editor keeps trying to put the same text into the article. Unfortuantely, I've been the only one speaking up to remove it there.Niteshift36 (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Read again, Niteshift. The Alton told me it was "mentioned in the detailed History of the University of California, Los Angeles", the same place you are trying to direct them. But it wasn't, because you keep removing it. Of course you're the only one speaking up against it so far. There are more people willing to put it up there, from what I know.

Oh, and notice how they also say the Taser incident is irrelevant. And it has its own section. --Fiatlut (talk) 06:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Alton said it's there. He didn't defend it being there. He was pretty clear to me when he said "Neither the taser incident or Alexandra's rant have any effect on the developmental trajectory of UCLA's history." True, Oakshade did agree with you, but has backed away from the subject. I don't blame him. As I pointed out in the other discussion, just over 70% of your total edits on Wikipedia, aside from your talk page, have been devoted to getting this incident jammed into an article. Couple that with your remarks made here about how opposing it must have something to do with racism, you are showing signs of not just a SPA, but a POV warrior. As for your continual complaining about the Taser incident, I don't care. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep something. It is its own article. If you think it's not notable, nominate it for deletion. If you are unclear how to do that, I'll help you. But saying this crap exists, so my crap has to be allowed isn't a valid argument. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Please stop directing arguments elsewhere. Since we are not arguing about changing anything on this article, please stop trying to go around trying to gain supporters. Funny you didn't back out. Seriously, though, what we're doing is just leaking another argument to another article. Any argument on here, including mine, is irrelevant, since it will not affect this article, but this one.

Fiatlut (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Directing an argument elsewhere? Um, sport, YOU supported adding the same item in 2 articles. YOU found opposition in two articles and YOU posted defending it in this article long before I did. If you want to see me stop responding to you in 2 locations, then stop trying to force this item into 2 locations. No, it's not funny that I didn't back out. I have a solid, policy based reason for removing that item and I'm sticking with it. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Academy Award winners
Official site, http://www.tft.ucla.edu/alumni-awards/, claims 105 Academy Award winners, a number significantly higher than the unsourced 13 winners stated on this page.

169.232.87.68 (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Alexa rankings
UCLA is not a website, although it has one. Is it really important to include the website's Alexa rankings? We don't include the sales positions of books they publish, or other peripheral performance indicators.  Will Beback   talk    07:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Since there are no objections, Alexa rankings removed. 169.232.87.68 (talk) 08:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Berkeley talk
I was wondering if we could cut back on injecting 'Berkeley' into the discussion when it isn't explicitly necessary. For example, when we're talking about the history of the campus, referencing UC Berkeley is apt since it was involved with a lot of UCLA's development.

Here are some examples from the article of statement's where I think UC Berkeley is relevent:

"After the athletic teams entered the Pacific Coast conference in 1926, the Southern Branch student council adopted the nickname "Bruins," a name offered by the student council at UC Berkeley.[29"

or

"UCLA was formally elevated to co-equal status with UC Berkeley in 1951, when Raymond B. Allen was named as its first chancellor."

But when we're talking about things that don't directly have anything to do with Berkeley, i don't think we should explicitly mention it. Including this 'Berkeley talk' put's both UCLA in it's shadow and detracts from the autonomy it has both in this article and as an institution. Here are some examples of what i think is unacceptable:

"As of Fall 2013, UCLA is the most selective public university in the United States: it reached a record low admit rate of 20.1%, edging out UC Berkeley's admit rate of 20.8%."

or

"In response to this issue, UCLA decided to shift to a more holistic admissions process, similar to that of UC Berkeley, starting Fall 2007.[91]"

I'll be rewriting these statements and deleting this 'Berkeley talk' when i see it arise. I don't anticipate any objections, but i'd be interested in hearing discussion to the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenfreak (talk • contribs) 15:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Size
It states in the article that UCLA is the smallest of the 10 UC campuses. I believe it is the second smallest. Isn't UCSF THE smallest UC campus? Aronomy (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right: UCSF is the smallest, UCLA 2nd smallest. I've made the correction and added a citation.98.234.109.54 (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Since UCSF limits itself to graduate programs in and related to the health sciences, is it really fair to consider it in the same light as a typical campus with both undergraduate and graduate programs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pithecanthropus4152 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Crime section
Regarding this diff: User:MariaDraganova has blanked the section twice, claiming that it is sensational. It seems reasonably balanced to me, and Business Insider seems like a reliable source. The disputations of the report are cited and sourced. Readers may legitimately want to read about this claim and the responses to it. I see no reason to remove it. Thoughts?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Business Insider is not exactly on par with the New York Times. It's an agenda driven webzine that is sometimes good and sometimes interesting, but at times also preposterous. The agenda is to favor privately run and endowed universities over public institutions, business interests over the public good, Apple over Google, and elites over everyone else. A few days after the campus crime piece, late last November, we learned that Android "gadgets" were mostly bought by people who don't do anything with them. ("Doing something", as it turns out, means participating in Black Friday shopping.) It seems that iPhone owners were far ahead of the field when it came to using a small-screen device for big ticket shopping, on the worst day of the year for surfing merchants' websites. Working largely from this conclusion, BI informed us early this year that owners of Android devices tend aren't real smartphone users, because they only want something cheap that looks like a smartphone.

As for the campus crime piece, the figures don't mean very much. In my opinion it's violent crime we should worry about, and in the year reported UCLA did have 40 such incidents. It's regrettable but in a population of 38K students bad things can happen over a year's time. In coming up with a generalized "danger ranking" BI factored in property crime at 25% and this also made a significant contribution to the total for UCLA, but I think it should be even less than that. With a modicum of care we can avoid becoming the victims of property crime; thieves tend to favor easy marks. I understand that people do become careless, and the prevalence of commuter students means more parked cars and more opportunities for thieves, but people really, really, really need to be more careful about their property and their surroundings. What's more, although Business Insider claims to be taking enrollment figures into account, even a brief look at the statistics proves it isn't doing that. In 2011 UCLA logged 40 violent incident reports. For comparison on a per-capita basis, I multiplied this number by 1000 and divided the result by the student population of 38100, obtaining a violent incident "index" value of approximately 1.05. This is admittedly high in the overall ranking, but it's far from being the highest. Many of the best known urban campuses, like USC, Northwestern, CUNY, and Columbia do not submit data at all, so it may not even be possible to make meaningful comparisons. And despite the many potential targets of property criminals, taking property crime incidents into account using Business Insider's weighting constant of 25%, the overall incident per capita ranking for UCLA is, again, far from the highest.

This has no place being cited in Wikipedia.Pithecanthropus4152 (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit. "Our crosstown rivals" isn't how we do it here. And several sources refuting the report are well cited already. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Tell me how we do it here, then. Although the linked citations of opposing viewpoints are more than adequate, none of their arguments are mentioned in the article.  This gives credence to the idea that BI is just as good as the Times or the L.A. Weekly which is ridiculous.  Take a good long look at how BI covers just about anything.  They have a "newsroom", but those aren't news articles; they're opinionated polemics.  It's a glorified blog.


 * A large campus in an urban setting usually has a greater incidence of crime than, say, a small state college in a farm region. But given the choice would you choose Ball State over UCLA, because it's safer? Really, I hope not.Pithecanthropus4152 (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely convinced you really care how we do it. You seem like you have a point to make and that's the problem. You're advocating a position and ignoring the goal of NPOV. when you start writing a summary in the first person, you're taking a biased position. You are not a reliable source and your own analysis is considered original research. What we have currently is how we do it....we have a single reliable source making a claim and we show multiple ones disputing it. The sources refuting it are adequate. We don't have to "make the case". You go read the sources and they make the argument. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Look, I never wrote "our crosstown rivals". I did write "our largest cities" which I do admit was inadvertently provincial on my part, and a bad turn of phrase. Do not misquote me again. If quoting Business Insider and similarly biased sources as the basis of the article content is how we do it here, then I'm done with this.Pithecanthropus4152 (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My error. You just wrote your own explanation in the first person, something we never do. Period. Bottom line: BI IS a reliable source, whether you like it or not. They made the allegation and we have several reliable sources to refute it, possibly too many sources. It is up to those sources to make the case, not us. So there is your reason, sans quotes. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Nobel Prize winners

 * Al Gore served as a visiting professor at the University of California, Los Angeles and won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. Ucla90024 (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the missing name. But shouldn't Al Gore and Bertrand Russell be enumerated in the footnotes for ease of verification?? __Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 02:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Counting 15 vs 13
I was surprised to see a discrepancy between 15 Nobel laureates in the second lede paragraph, and 13 in the body of the current article. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 11:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT? Buffs (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, the detail showed 13=6+7; but what would the proper breakdown be for 15, 8+7? And I dont have a citation. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 09:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thirteen is verifiable, fifteen is not. I've made the change to 13; if 15 can be verified, the sentence should then be changed.98.234.109.54 (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The citations show 14=7+7 as of today. Fixed text. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 21:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Those seeking the 15th name can see below. --Ancheta Wis    (talk  &#124; contribs) 10:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

semi-protect article
has anyone thought about semi-protecting this article? there's a bunch of vandalism from random editors so it might be a good idea to semiprotect it. thoughts? Xenfreak (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur. Pithecanthropus4152 (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

UCLA leadership
I'd like to propose we add the provosts prior to 1952 in the UCLA chancellors template and change the title to leaders as in other universities. Looking at the past leader history, they do mention the provosts in the leadership roster ....Pvmoutside (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Endowment
US News, for whatever reason, over-reports UC endowments. The last UCOP endowment report was issued in 2006, and may be dated, but is the most current official information available on UC endowments. See prior discussion here:Talk:University_of_California%2C_Davis. Amerique <sup style="color:darkred;">dialectics 22:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Amerique- It looks like UCLA alone reports the endowment at 956,449,000 - see page 22 of the ref'd pdf from UC endowments. This number is relatively similar to the NACUBO 2007 report on endowments, which reported 959,486,000 for UCLA Foundation. The donor designation funds listed in Table 1 on the ref'd pdf only reflects donor designation funds, not the actual allocation the campus works with. I won't make the change, but someone with a greater interest and more insight should look into it.69.143.10.92 (talk) 04:35, 1 May 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) 17:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

What is reported in the above publication is two separate figures. The Foundation is what each individual campus actually manages respectively, while the Regent report is what the UC office manages, where the campus has no control. Uwatch310 (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * True, the amounts are managed separately, but the UC Annual Endowment report defines the school's Total Endowment = managed by the school (Foundation) + unmanaged by the school (managed by the UC Regents). See p.4 of http://www.ucop.edu/treasurer/_files/report/UC_Annual_Endowment_Report_FY2011-2012.pdf, which "outlines the University’s total endowment assets by donor designation to either The Regents for the benefit of the campus or to the campus Foundation."Contributor321 (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Can I suggest that someone move this more recent discussion to the bottom of the talk page so that other interested editors will be able to find it more easily? It's obvious you're going to need more than just the two of you to work this out.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want to include data from the system endowment, then that should be clearly stated. The system endowment distributes money to all UC schools. It is misleading to refer to the system endowment as an individual school's endowment.--Wiseoleman17 (talk) 09:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Your point, if I understand it correctly, is that only the Foundation assets should be reported as the school's endowment. However, the Regents portion of Berkeley's (and all other UCs) endowment, which you refer to as "the system endowment", is in fact clearly a part of the school's total endowment. From p.2 of the above-referenced report by the UC's Treasurer's Office: "donors can designate either The Regents or the Campus Foundations as the recipient of their gift assets. Foundations may then choose The Regents (the Treasurer’s Office) and/or external investment managers to manage their endowment investments." Contributor321 (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Colors for UCLA
An editor has changed all of the colors for UCLA to a source that doesn't list a hex code. This source lists hex codes for the University/Athletics. If you look closely, the colors listed here are the colors listed at this source. Their media guides are now saying Blue and Gold, not True blue and gold. (Media Guide 1, Media Guide 2) NCAA.com lists the colors as Blue & Gold. More specifically, the university uses UCLA Blue & UCLA Gold for academics/athletics. The website says: "UCLA Blue is a custom Pantone colors; It does not have a Pantone number. According to the brand guidelines, the colors would be and  per both the digital and print sources. Athletics would be the  and  per the sources and Athletics website. These would be totally different than  and . Also, the Template:UCLA shouldn't support the Athletic colors as this is the ACADEMIC template, not sports. There may be a hat note saying the academic colors, but it is displaying the athletic colors because of the module. Corkythe  hornetfan  22:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm the editor who has changed all of the colors for UCLA athletics. If you look at the source I provided (seen here), it says that "For licensed product purposes, the official UCLA colors are Blue, PMS 285c, and Gold, PMS 123c." As far as I know, that's still a current source. I then referenced the Pantone colors at Pantone.com. Here is the link for the Pantone 285 C color (True blue). I then right-clicked on the color and selected 'Inspect Element (Q)'. After doing so, the hex color listed was #0073CF. That's how I determined the colors. Here is the link for the Pantone 123 C color (Gold). I repeated this process to determine the Gold color, which was listed as hex color #FDC82F. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: For reference, an earlier discussion on the blue color was at Template_talk:UCLA.—Bagumba (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Corky: I'm wary of reading a generic mention of "blue" to imply that True Blue is no longer the athletic color. It might be a matter of not using specific colors that laypeople would not recognize. As for #347BAD, how was that number obtained? Also note that the UCLA script at http://brand.ucla.edu/brand/print/logo/ still subtly looks like a different blue, and the script is only used in athletics.—Bagumba (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , it was obtained here. It's below the top blue and is title "UCLA Blue Text only". It looks closer to the logo on the Athletics website than the 3284BF. The blue that matches on both the Digital colors and Print colors would be the . My point about the "True blue" thing is that most schools would include that if that is the actual color, not just plain blue. Corkythe hornetfan  23:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the 2010 football media guide at p. 185 called it "blue" even when it explicitly mentioned Pantone 285, so it's possible/likely UCLA remains lax in being specific with its color names. I'd need more explicit evidence that the athletic and academic colors standards have now been merged.—Bagumba (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the colors in question are found on page 2, and also on page 185 of the UCLA Media Guide in question. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 01:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

ViewsOnYou "Most Driven" ranking
One or more unregistered editors have added a mention of a new ranking developed by ViewsOnYou that claims that UCLA students are the most driven among an unspecified group of universities. Business Insider has a brief webpage on the topic but quite frankly it appears to be more about gaining pageviews and possibly promoting the new company/ranking system than about supplying rigorous, important information. On those grounds I challenge the inclusion of this material in this article (or any other college/university article). It's especially unsuitable for the lead of this or any other article. ElKevbo (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * In my opinion viewsonyou.com is not a reliable source for anything, and I would venture that the good people at WP:RSN would agree, should it become necessary to bring the question to their attention.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This has cropped up again on this page, and I've removed it. This random ranking from a "London-based startup" is not reliable - it does not have clear/transparent or rigorous methodology, it has failed to gain widespread coverage, and it's quite obscure. I agree that it should be excluded. Neutralitytalk 15:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Status as "Flagship"
I saw that the UCLA page had the info that it was one of the flagship institutions of the UC system. I edited it so that the sentence flow would be be better. A user has edited it entirely though, and I undid his correction. I'm a new user and I recently realized that I should post here before undoing the edit. So, here it is. Do you think that the status flagship can be given to UCLA? My idea is that it is a flagship institution because of the number of applicants (most in UC), world ranking status(trailing Berkeley by 3-4 spots), and California's broad geography(Southern Califoria = UCLA). California after all, doesn't officially say that Berk is THE flagship. Most people consider California as a two-Flagship state or even three-flagship state if you add UCSD. thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.32.156 (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problem with calling it the/a flagship. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What reliable sources are available confirming this alleged fact? ElKevbo (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Newsday "What's the flagship university of the University of California?" Burke asked. " There are at least two or three - Berkeley and UCLA,". This article from the NY Times  describes both UCLA and Berkley as the flagships. LA Times:, "That means any student that comes from such a family will pay less to attend Harvard than most flagship public universities, including UCLA". Niteshift36 (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * LA Times again "At Berkeley and UCLA, the flagship campuses, the competition is particularly acute..."  San Jose Mercury News  "The new policy will mean that more students who've overcome obstacles will end up attending the system's flagship campuses, Berkeley and UCLA..." Niteshift36 (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi! I'm the guy who asked about the flagship status (first post in IP address- I have yet to create an account). Thank you for the additional sources. It seems the links haven't been added though, so I'll try to add them. thank you again

121.54.32.156 (talk (that's my previous IP address) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.32.148 (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not like it's some official designation and more than one source is willing to say that 2 of them are flagships at the same time, so I wouldn't worry a lot about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

At least for all nine campuses that provide typical undergraduate core courses and majors, I don't think UC is really supposed to have flagships. Sure, UCLA and Berkeley are harder to get into, because more people want to get in, but that doesn't mean the quality of instruction or course content is necessarily better than, say, at UC Riverside or even UC Merced. I can't put my finger on it, but having a BA and MLS from two different UC campuses I somehow got the impression that they were two parts of the same thing. By contrast, the units of the CSU system seem to be more autonomous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pithecanthropus4152 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is disagreement. Several UC Presidents have declared Berkeley the flagship. Other sources say UCLA is a flagship also. It seems good to discuss the debate in the main article, but to leave it out on the sidebar (as it is contested).Daneditswikipedia (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The most selective public school and the flagship of the UC system is UC Berkeley not UCLA
Here are 2011 admission statistics: UCLA: http://collegeapps.about.com/od/collegeprofiles/p/UCLA_Profile.htm

Berkeley: http://collegeapps.about.com/od/collegeprofiles/p/Berkeley_Profil.htm

Berkeley is the flagship campus: http://www.berkeley.edu/about/fact.shtml

Let's not kid ourselves. I will be making the changes soon if nobody replies. YvelinesFrance (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It cuts both ways though; it sometimes happens that a student will be accepted by UCB and rejected by UCLA. (Misplaced comment earlier so I'm reposting it now.)Pithecanthropus4152 (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The claim about being a UC flagship (not the UC flagship) is backed up by five separate citations. Do you see some issues with those sources? As for the title of most selective, this is discussed in more detail in the Admissions section. But the numbers there don't exactly jibe with the latest stats from UCOP, which show Berkeley edging out UCLA in 2012. Maybe a more thorough look at the numbers is in order. Toohool (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC):•
 * The UCLA website itself does not claim that it is a flagship of any kind. Those sources you mentioned are secondary and not factual, what is imagined in the public mind is not necessarily fact. As for admissions statistics, don't make me laugh, Berkeley is far more selective both as a percentage (number of acceptances to number of applications) as well as in the quality of applicant. Berkeley is much more prestigious than UCLA, are you trying to defend your alma mater or something? YvelinesFrance (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP prefers reliable sources above all else. Esrever (klaT) 17:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The UCLA website is not the only or even the preferred source of information about UCLA, especially when it comes to somewhat subjective concepts like "flagship". As far as Berkeley being more prestigious, you may be right. What point are you trying to make about the content of the article? Toohool (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have never heard of a "fleet" with more than one "flagship." The reference is to the most prized ship in a navy. There can only be one.68.48.139.153 (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Shooting
I have merged the content from 2016 UCLA shooting pending further discussion at Articles for deletion/2016 UCLA shooting. As a notable event passing WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT due to its coverage and its historical context, I believe it should be mentioned on the parent article (this one) but the deletion nomination is currently discussing whether the incident in its current form is not notable enough in its own right to need a separate article. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 06:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on University of California, Los Angeles. 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130916145214/http://www.businessweek.com:80/bschools/rankings to http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/rankings/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110817021611/http://www.uclalumni.net/calendarevents/springsing/Gershwin/winners.cfm to http://www.uclalumni.net/CalendarEvents/springsing/Gershwin/winners.cfm

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

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 02:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Boosterism and rankings
The lead of the article needs to be redone to prune the boosterism as per Wiki guidelines. There are far too many "superlative this, number of that" in the lead. In the same vein the "rankings" section needs to be redone. For one, it's far too large, having multiple subsections when every other major university dedicates only one section. It has plenty of unsourced statements. The amount of original research is absurd, e.g. "UCLA was only one of two universities (the other being Harvard) which had all of its faculties ranked in the top 10." The "accolades" that UCLA claims in this section also violate the WP:BOOSTERISM guidelines, including the one about slicing-and-dicing rankings to favor a university - e.g. "the youngest law school in the country to consistently rank in the top 15." And the rankings seem to be cherry-picked - the article spends an entire subsection discussing UCLA's high rankings in the very outdated NRC rankings (which will be 20-year-old data next year), even though newer, more comprehensive ones were released in 2010. (They don't favor UCLA as much as the 1995 ones, which I suspect is the reason there's no mention of the 2010 rankings, only the 1995 ones.)

Someone needs to do a serious overhaul of the boosterism in this article; the amount of it is embarrassing. 66.59.249.107 (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur. Someone help, please? LingerTinger22 (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)