Template talk:University of California

Initial comments
I received the following from User:Allyunion on my talk page:

''I just wanted to stay that it looks horribly uneven with the list of campuses on two lines, with the bottom line much much smaller than the top. The 6 campuses on the top, and the 4 campuses on the bottom made it at least a bit nicer. It just looks so... uneven to me with the 8 campuses on top and the 2 campuses on the bottom.''

''Perhaps it would be better to include a table within a table and put five campus on top and five campuses on the bottom? Right now, I think it looks messy. Not having it one line or not having it look even just doesn't really work.''

I agree that it looks uneven and someone with the html skills should fix it, but we also have to take into account how it would look on smaller (eg 800 x 600 px) screens. --Jiang 21:59, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I have HTML skills, just lazy ^^;; - Allyunion 07:54, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wiki + HTML Table
Rather than editing the template itself and having disagreements over the look, I'll put my suggested change here:

Does this look fine? Allyunion 06:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

HTML only


I put the three formats, the second one I just discovered recently how to do. The third one I just put it up for the heck of it. - Allyunion 06:32, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The options compared
(via edit conflict, written before you posted the differnt codes) I converted to a 800 x 600 screen and the options looked like this:



--Jiang 06:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

800 by 600 resolution
By the way, we can't always please everyone at every screensize. Granted, 800 X 600 is a worthy resolution to consider, but anything smaller, such as 640 X 480 isn't really worth considering. The majority of users I believe use 1024 X 768, unless they are old -- then they use 800 X 600. Under the 800 X 600 resolution, the current template fits on three lines, with Santa Cruz on the last line -- orphaned alone. I really think that the consideration for a 640 X 480 should not be a high priority in this case. There is about 35 pixels from the Template border of the article entry to the table border of the navigational menu on the left side. On the right side, there is about 132 pixels left under a 800 X 600 resolution. Besides, the only reason anyone uses a smaller resolution is because they can't read the text -- which means having the text small doesn't help at all. - Allyunion 06:45, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Looking it at 800 X 600
I'm using FireFox, under FireFox it's three lines...

Trying without a margin...
- Allyunion 06:53, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Much more spacing on the first row than the second. --Jiang 02:19, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Trying without center, and a set pixel size
- Allyunion 06:54, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * border around seal is fine, but links broken into two lines are harder too follow. --Jiang 02:19, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Let's try 4 campus, then 3, then 3...
- Allyunion 06:57, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * big chunk of white space underneath "Los Angeles". Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz are too close to tell the links apart. --Jiang 02:19, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wiki's tables aren't working for me... going to HTML


- Allyunion 07:19, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * uneven spacing, as above. im also getting two bands of blue next to the seal. --Jiang 02:19, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Let's try 3, 3, then 4...


- Allyunion 07:22, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * spacing the line break issues, as above --Jiang 02:19, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Okay... going for 3, 4, 3


- Allyunion 07:25, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

4 UCs, 3 UCs, 3 UCs


- Allyunion 07:36, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

3 UCs, 4 UCs, 3 UCs


- Allyunion 07:36, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

3 UCs, 3 UCs, 4 UCs


- Allyunion 07:36, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Revision comments
I think the 4, 3, 3 with a set width looks good. I used 485 px, which SHOULD work under a 640 X 480 resolution with no margin. Do you perfer it with a margin or without? It looks like it has enough spaces to use a margin, slightly.

- Allyunion 07:36, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Shrinking the table a bit, readding a bit of margin


Notes: Table is now set at 450px. This WELL should work under a 640 X 480, but my laptop doesn't support that resolution so I can't test that. I've added the style margin comment, but removed the style width comment in favor for a standard table width parameter since I'm using HTML code. Additionally, I should think the code should pass XHTML standards.

- Allyunion 07:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Restoring the code with the edits


Notes: Restoring the code to original format, with margin, centers, etc. By the way, div align tags are now favored over center tags.

- Allyunion 07:48, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The problem with all these variations is that the spacing is inconsistent, making the table look messy. A | mark works to separate adjacent links. I think by the looks of it, breaking into tables like this isn't going to work. How about making the "University of California" a horizontal bar on top, above the links? --Jiang 02:19, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

University of California over the top


Over the bottom


Non-table version


Without tables
How's this?

Berkeley | Davis | Irvine | Los Angeles | Merced | Riverside | San Diego | San Francisco | Santa Barbara | Santa Cruz 

It looks the same on 1024x768 and 800x600 screens (that is, two lines of almost equal length). --Jiang 06:44, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Although this might sound strange, I think "University of California" looks much better across the bottom as oppossed on top. -- Allyunion 23:12, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes...strange. I still prefer having it on top. Should "University of California" be left aligned or centered? --Jiang 02:13, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Leave it centered. If anyone complains, they'll discuss it here... hopefully.  I think it looks much better than what is being used now.  Maybe in a year, we'll revise it again. ^^;; -- Allyunion 11:31, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd like you to clean up the code, for example:


 * or, with &lt;br&gt; instead of the extra table row:


 * Both proposals are without fixed pixel heights/widths, so that you can enlarge/diminish the text size without breaking the design. Regards, Fred Bradstadt 16:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Across the bottom


This is how I found the template a couple of days ago, and changed it; it looked like this: uctemplate.png. This design has problems:


 * It seemed to be designed to have two rows, with a break separating them, but it's a fixed-width table. This is bound to break, and it did, with the first row wrapping a bit, then the br, then the second row.
 * Even if it hadn't wrapped like that, the rows are not centered.
 * The extra vertical bar at the end of the top row doesn't look good.

Hope you like the new version. --Yath 15:11, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No objection...
If there is no objection, seeing as you haven't responded in awhile, I will now put up the new template. --Allyunion 06:25, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No complaints?
Eh... I dunno, it's just I dislike the idea of the auto fit width to the image and text... --[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 12:06, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fair use
All images used in templates that will appear outside the main articles for which their respective fair-use rationales hold (see WP:F) must be free images. UC seals and any other images copyrighted by the UC Regents will not be free to use here, no matter how low the resolution. --Dynaflow 13:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This particular seal was adopted in 1910, and is thus in the public domain. See WP:Public_domain. It is not subject to copyright, so we don't have to worry about fair use. Though it's still a trademark.  See WP:Logos.  I think, correct me if I'm wrong, we can use the seal in this template.Nguyenmdk (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (copied from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_University_of_California) I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I can tell, the seal still being in active use as a trademark means that it's not "free" and thus Non-free content guidelines apply. I personally don't care, I even think it's a great idea, but putting the seal in the template would reproduce it all over the UC articles and thus violate the minimal use provisions of Wikipedia policy. I wouldn't be the one to revert for doing that, but plenty of other people will. Amerique dialectics  14:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Total, like, revampage
Voila! Based on my original prototype UCSC template. The color will change in the actual template (this is just the pasted code, still in Santa Cruz's colors as a relic of its prototype's coloring) once I dig up UCOP's identity standards documentation. Does anybody have any suggstions as to other content to include (UC Police, etc.)?

--Dynaflow 03:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've been playing around with various color schemes, and since I can't find the official colors for anything except the individual campuses, I am going to adopt the colors of one of the campuses as the navbox color scheme. There are four general choices, as I see it.


 * The first example, posted above, is the more subdued color scheme used by UCSC and in slightly different forms by UCI and UCSD. I'm partial to that color scheme because it's easy on the eyes and it doesn't blow out the greyscale graphic.


 * Here is the high-contrast blue-and-yellow used by Cal and UCSB. It's very vivid, but that very quality makes the navbox almost obtrusively bright, especially in contrast with the embedded thumbnail:


 * Then there is the dark-blue-and-gold scheme favored by Davis and Merced, which is aesthetically pleasing, and also reduces the blowout problem of the blue-and-yellow scheme above, but it reduces the contrast between the heading text and its background field so much that it becomes hard to read:


 * Lastly, there is the lighter-blue-and-orangey-gold that UCLA and UCR have adopted. I think it's  "prettiest" combination, but the contrast between the two major colors is kind of weird and makes reading the text harder on the eyes than it has to be:


 * I am most in favor of the first pattern. It'll be annoying to have two boxes in the same color on the page I'm most involved in maintaining (UCSC), and I never liked the color scheme when I went there (I preferred the high-contrast blue-and-yellow of Berkeley amongst the UCs), but it's perfect for this navbox, given the pages it will be displayed on and the graphic used.  We want useful, clean, elegant, and unobtrusive, and I think the UCSC/UCI-type color scheme is the way to go on this.


 * To see all the UCs' official color combinations side-by-side, see the "Userboxes galore" section on my Crap I Made page.--Dynaflow 10:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * After giving this some thought, I've decided that, in order to avoid the possibility of partisan warfare between students and alumni of the different UCs, I will pre-empt all that jazz by creating a color scheme using the palest yellow and the darkest blue out of the choices available in the pan-UC palette. It's a gorgeous combination. This is what I think the final color scheme should look like:


 * Tell me what you think of the very subdued, grey subheadings. The subheadings aren't really all that necessary, and yet at the same time they are, so greying them out might be the best way to keep them in without their distracting the navbox user from either the (useable) thumbnail or the functional links. --Dynaflow 11:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Subdued,, gray subheadings: not good, they should be darker. And the last one should say "Laboratories" or something other than research, since doing research at all of their facilities is something the UC is very proud of. --Yath 03:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I could do a darker shade of grey on the subheadings. I think "Research" should stay, as that is the list of research-only institutions without de jure student populations.  I'm trying to keep the subheadings to one line each, and while the word "Research" can encompass the labs and the observatories, "Laboratories" can only encompass the national labs, which will necessitate another line for the observatories, which will in turn make the template bigger and less easy to use in exchange for no appreciable benefit.  Thanks for the feedback.  I'll implement your idea for darker subheadings.  --Dynaflow 04:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Giving the impression that research only occurs at a subset of their facilities is very misleading. --Yath


 * I don't think anyone will be fooled, but if you can come up with something more compact than "Research and Laboratories" and more exact than "Research," I can change it. I'm trying to keep the template to a maximum of three subheadings with titles taking up one line each to keep the template as thin on the page as possible.  -- Dynaflow  23:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just want to say the template looks great! Thanks for your work trisweb (Talk) 17:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed! I say let's use it! Pyrofork (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

additional research branch
Anyone object to adding PHEV Research Center? It wouldn't create the need for another line, and is pertinent, especially as of recently. 71.137.196.107 (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In order to keep the template from becoming gigantic and overcrowded, I'd prefer it if we limited the articles listed to those on the campuses, on the hospitals, and on the large, detached, UC-wide research institutions which are geographically distinct from their administering campuses. The PHEV Research Center should be listed on UC Davis, though, if it isn't already.   --Dynaflow   babble  18:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To an extent, the PHEV Research Center is UC-wide -- it's administered in parts all throughout California. While some on there already, are only on 1 campus, such as Berkeley.  I say we make it all UC or get to include some specifics.  70.133.71.75 (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Other UC-wide research centers, such as UC Citrus Experiment Station, University of California Institute for Mexico and the United States and University of California Center for Water Resources, are adequately represented in the campus-specific template:Template:University of California, Riverside. The national labs at Berkeley are of obvious national historic significance. Concur with Dynaflow against overcrowding the UC template. Amerique dialectics 19:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Another for addition of mind institute. How is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lick_Observatory any more important, seriously? 76.20.18.186 (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "World's first permanently occupied mountain-top observatory," built between 1876 and 1887. We could put dozens of ORUs on the UC template, it would overcrowd it. Amerique <sup style="color:darkred;">dialectics  00:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The MInd institute is JUST as important... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.18.186 (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Colors
For future reference, I'm using the official UC palette from here: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/graphicresources/elements.php#colors. --Dynaflow  babble  08:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to delete Hastings
Hastings is not on the official UC letterhead nor the official list of UC campuses. In this case, Hastings appears to have been added in this edit in 2006 by a user who has not been active for 10 years. Any objections before I delete it from the infobox? --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No response after over two years. I'm pulling it out. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding Washington Center
Are there any thoughts on adding University of California, Washington Center to the template? I think it could either go in the "Campus" line as "Washington Center" or a new line could be created (internship?). As far as I can tell, it's not administered by any specific campus. Bigcheddar (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)