Template talk:University of California, Santa Cruz

Moving away from the ugly jumble box
The older version of the template was just so stunningly ugly that I had to fix it, lest it continue representing my alma mater in shades of lilac. I looked at the other UCs' navigational templates, found that they were pretty ugly too, and thus decided that UCSC should get the best-looking template in the UC System to compensate it for having to deal with the confusing lavendar box thing for so long. Voila! Dynaflow 13:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Silicon Valley Initiatives
I thank Talkov for putting the SVIs article together and for adding it to the template. I have moved the entry to "Research" from "Professional Schools" because, although a grad school of business has been proposed, it is years away from getting off the ground, if it gets off the ground at all (you need but hark back to the 1963 LRDP land-use map for plenty of examples of interesting projects that never saw the light of day). For the forseeable future, UCSC will continue to have only one endowed professional school, Baskin, and UCSC's Ames presence, by all indications, is going to be research-focused until someone comes up with an endowment for this business school thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynaflow (talk • contribs) 05:39, 26 March 2007‎

Shakespeare Santa Cruz
Do we still want to include Shakespeare Santa Cruz in the template since it is no longer directly supported by the university? They just announced that the successor company, Santa Cruz Shakespeare, has reached an agreement to continue to perform in the Glen, so I could see an argument for keeping it in the template. But at the very least, I would think changing the name within the template would be necessary. (I plan to create an article for the new company shortly.) -- GentlemanGhost  (converse)  20:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Santa Cruz Shakespeare no longer performs at the university, so I have been bold and removed it from the template. I can understand a desire to keep it in the template for historical reasons, so if there is a consensus to put it back, that's fine. -- GentlemanGhost  (converse)  02:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)