Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:29, 21 March 2011

	University of California, Los Angeles is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 12, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed May 25, 2007 Peer review Reviewed June 4, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. University of California Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to University of California, its history, accomplishments and other topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject University of CaliforniaUniversity of California Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Higher education This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Misplaced Pages. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. California: Los Angeles / Southern California High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as High-importance).

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)

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.

v t e University of California, Berkeley
Located in: Berkeley, California
Academics	Business Chemistry Computing, Data Science, and Society Education Engineering Environmental Design Information Journalism Law Letters and Science Natural Resources Optometry and Vision Science Public Health Public Policy Social Welfare
Athletics	Programs Golden Bears Baseball Men's basketball Women's basketball Football Rugby Softball Track and field Volleyball Rivals Stanford Big Game UCLA Rivalry Culture Oski "The Play"
Campus	Academic Libraries Bancroft Library Doe Memorial Library Moffitt Library California Hall Campbell Hall Dwinelle Hall Etcheverry Hall Evans Hall Gilman Hall Hearst Memorial Mining Building Jacobs Institute for Design Innovation LeConte Hall Leuschner Observatory South Hall Wheeler Hall Residential Bowles Hall International House Stern Hall Student housing University House Student life Hearst Greek Theatre Memorial Stadium Edwards Stadium Senior Hall Zellerbach Hall Haas Pavilion Tightwad Hill Evans Diamond Facilities Berkeley Art Museum Botanical Garden and Julia Morgan Hall Lawrence Hall of Science Sather Gate Sather Tower Sproul Plaza Service Bear Transit
Research	Laboratories Institute of Governmental Studies Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory Tsinghua-Berkeley Shenzhen Institute
Activities	Associated Students Marching Band The Daily Californian Jazz Ensembles Student Cooperative KALX CalTV Men's Octet California Golden Overtones Food Collective Order of the Golden Bear Pioneers in Engineering Berkeley Forum California Pelican Heuristic Squelch Symphony Orchestra
Related	Alumni Faculty and staff History Caltopia Free Speech Movement Graduate Theological Union Howison Lectures Occupy the Farm Tarski Lectures
Founded: 1868

--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)

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 Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Education/United_States#California. --Dynaflow babble 06:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, it's {{User ucla}}. ALTON .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 . 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. --Dynaflow babble 22:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

The result of the proposal was keep at the same name, per the discussion below. Yonatan 22:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

University of California, Los Angeles → UCLA — more commonly referred to as UCLA (even according to the article), like CNN. —Yonatan 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 *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Misplaced Pages'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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages: ja: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 proposal. 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? ALTON .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. --Dynaflow babble 09:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that evades me. UCLA editors must be much better at resolving disputes ;) ALTON .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? ALTON .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)

Notes

• New page should be made for History soon, if expanded enough. Incidents aren't significant enough on the grand scale of the university to have individual headings. ARPANET section should be hugely reduced and moved to the ARPANET page if possible.
• Get history from 40s-90s. Should include notes on John Wooden, important administrators, etc
• Activism maybe merge into history, some info should go in history regardless (communist hotplate) ALTON .ıl 08:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going ahead with this merging. Any comments should be left here. ALTON .ıl 04:45, 10 July 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 21:29, 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. --Dynaflow babble 15:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks a lot Dynaflow! Decafpenguin (talk) 09:05, 26 December 2007 (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 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 "General Services Campus Map". UCLA. UC Regents. Retrieved 2009-07-19.) 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)

Resolved – Image uploaded with correct name; deletion on incorrectly named file requested. --Newportm (talk) 21:37, 19 July 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. ALTON .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 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. ALTON .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 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. ALTON .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 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. ALTON .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 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 m:The Wrong Version. --Dynaflow 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. ALTON .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? ALTON .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? --Dynaflow babble 07:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice pic!   Will Beback  talk  07:57, 22 February 2009 (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. ALTON .ıl 06:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Amerique 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? ALTON .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. ALTON .ıl 23:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Although this isn't a policy or guideline, per Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Universities#Structure, a section is usually reserved for some discussion of "noted people." I think the current information there is adequate. edited a bit. Amerique 23:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

hey

¿what are the majors the ucla have?

Look here. Amerique 06:12, 5 March 2008 (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,_Davis#Endowment. Amerique 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)

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 00:21, 21 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 00:20, 21 March 2008 (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)

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. ALTON .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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 04:05, 6 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? --Dynaflow 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)

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.--ShelfSkewed Talk 05:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, do it. --Dynaflow 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)

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)

Merge to UCLA Law School, not here. Amerique 04:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Amerique. Newportm (talk) 19:42, 21 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)

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.

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 16:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and merged it to UCLA School of Law with a redirect at the namespace. Amerique 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)

infobox logo removal/inclusion

A discussion regarding logo removal/inclusion that occurred during a recent edit to this article is ongoing at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Universities#Logo as identifying marks in infoboxes. 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)

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)

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 12:32, 30 March 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.

1. "UCLA Research Facts" (PDF). Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research. 2006–2007. Retrieved 2009-11-14.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
2. "Top American Research Universities". Center for Measuring University Performance. 2009. Retrieved 2009-11-14.
3. Thomson Scientific (2002). "List of UCLA Highly Cited Researchers". ISI Highly Cited Researchers Version 1.1. Retrieved 2006-12-02.

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)

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)

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, or are you all racists?

• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class University of California articles
• Top-importance University of California articles
• WikiProject University of California articles
• B-Class Higher education articles
• WikiProject Higher education articles
• B-Class California articles
• High-importance California articles
• B-Class Los Angeles articles
• Top-importance Los Angeles articles
• Los Angeles area task force articles
• B-Class Southern California articles
• High-importance Southern California articles
• Southern California task force articles
• WikiProject California articles