Talk:California State University, Long Beach/Archive 1

Archive 1

Impaction

I'm not sure what type of person wrote this article, but most literate people tend to agree that using "impact" as a verb (when not talking about dental surgery) is not wise. That someone could accept a section head like "impaction" or talk about "impacted majors" is beyond me. It's more infuriating that the college website uses that language.

"Is our children learning?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.209.128.67 (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Pyramid image in infobox

I recommend moving the pyramid image in the infobox further down the article and putting the school logo/shield/emblem in the infobox, as is done on other college and university pages. – MementoVivere 20:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Pyramid picture doesn't have any copyright info listed for it, so it may have to be removed anyway. My guess is that it is probably a publicity picture for the CSULB and is copyrighted. I may purchase a digital camera in the next month, so maybe I will then be able to shoot a replacement that will have a proper GFDL license.

As for moving the picture (at least while it's still here)—Be bold! BlankVerse ∅ 14:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As far as the prominant position of the pyramid; The school has become much identified with it. It appears prominantly on campus clothing, regalia, literature and has been incorporated into various campus logos. [1] It is in effect a much loved symbol of the school and is not out of place in it's current position. --SAUNDERS 01:48, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed my mind. I think a the school logo would be nice in that position but I'm haveing difficulty finding a quality logo. If the pyramid does get moved I don't think it should be removed from the article for the reasons I wrote about on June 16 --SAUNDERS 02:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Why is there no discussion of California State University, Long Beach's Moratorium on New Student Organizations?96.82.3.60 (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The following is from the United States Copyright office website under Title 17 chapter 1:

[2]

"The “United States”, when used in a geographical sense, comprises the several States, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the organized territories under the jurisdiction of the United States Government."

CSULB as a California State entity is a jurisdiciton under the United States Government

Further under Section 105 of the same code:

"Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise."

Ergo, CSULB as an entity under the U.S. Government is not allowed to copyright images thus the image of the pyramid is within legitimate use.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first or the last time.

Almost all US Govt. publications are in the public domain which is the reason that the Wikipedia can use the images from NASA, for just one example. Even most publications from the State of California government are in the public domain (although that is not true for all states), which is the reason that I could use both text and drawings from the Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game for much of the recently grunion article. The California State University system, however, is a separate entity, and will have different rules. If the picture is truely from the CSULB publicity dept., then it may be just a matter of getting the school to license the image according to the GFDL (if you do contact them, it is best to explain upfront that what you will be using will be a smaller, lower-resolution version of their image (72-100 dpi)). On the other hand, I have not had much luck in persuading government agencies to license their images for use on the Wikipedia. BlankVerse ∅ 13:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tuition

Tuition is now significantly higher, at over $2800/year.

Tuition is actually $0 a year. Fees, however are at $2864 per year, assuming the student takes only Fall and Spring courses as a full-time student. Nonetheless, this is still very inexpensive. I'll make the change. Someone might want to check if, as the article states, we are really the least expensive (which seems highly unlikely to me).

Alumni

Suggest that someone make a seperate page for "Long Beach State People" as the current page is unwieldy and I have been adding the large number of sports alumni to the page.

Tuition (by dictionary definition, "fees" if you prefer the CSU legal definition) is now $6,738/year and has seen significant increases over the past few years which, along with furlough days, has been a significant issue the past few years for both students and faculty. No signs of letting up for the next few years either. This article sounds a bit promotional ignoring that, and mentioning the Princeton Review Best Value fluff, which if you look at the actual link and click the "Bottom Line" states "Attending classes for a year costs Californians about $4,800 (in fees, not tuition)." Who is giving out the 30% off coupons? --12.219.255.2 (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Since we do not seem to agree on how many semesters make up a year, nor state the date of the information, I am going to change the info to state "Tuition & Mandatory Fees" as of 2021, which is $3,425.00 as of today's date Bobsd (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Ron Young (bad link)

The link formerly used for Ron Young (professor) went to a reality game show contestant. I removed it. I can't tell if the professor has a page in Wikipedia, but it doesn't look like he does. If he does, someone needs to create a disambiguation page for both Ron Youngs. Pschelden 22:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CSU.PNG

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

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Csulb.jpg

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

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

CSULB Navbox

I ran across the unused navbox {{California State University, Long Beach}} out in the far reaches of Template Space, apparently being put together by Foolishgrunt back in August for CSULB in the pattern of {{California State University}}, {{San Diego State University}}, etc. If someone wants to take a crack at finishing the job by turning all those external links into wikilinks, the template can be posted to aid internal navigation between CSULB-related articles. If you need any help (e.g., to expand the template to include new subheadings, etc.), just drop me a note. --Dynaflow babble 05:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I figured that navbox would go unnoticed forever. I didn't even notice when somebody did notice it. ;)

Besides not having enough items to include, the biggest reason I didn't insert that template into the main article was that none of the colleges or research facilities have Wiki articles to link to. The best I could do was use the school website to track down some external links. As much as I would love to write the articles myself, I'm a full-time student and don't have the time. I could probably throw together a few stubs, but I was afraid that would just make it look more unorganized than it already does.--Foolishgrunt (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

WP CSU

Hello, I noticed your recent edits and thought you might want to become a member of the California State University WikiProject. We've recently revamped the project page and started a drive to improve California State University-related articles. We have a lot of articles under our project and would like assistance getting them to good article status. Hope you'll join us. Go STATE!

--Dabackgammonator (talk) 05:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Objectivity

This article needs to be reassessed for objectivity. For example, why does the article open up by listing a bunch of rankings and miscellaneous facts such as "It is also home to the largest publicly funded art school west of the Mississippi". Is this really introductory material? Also, under the admissions section, claims such as "In recent years, CSULB has started to edge Cal Poly as the most competitive university in the CSU system" are unsubstantiated and very subjective. How is comparison of acceptance rates to University of California even relevant when standards are clearly different between the two systems? With average SAT scores in the low 1,000s, one can't really believe that standards are the same or stricter than at UCs where they are in the 1,200-1,300s. I believe too much is being made of the low acceptance rate. This is more of a reflection of the quality(or lack of) of the applicant pool than the selectivity of the university.

Highest number of applicants in the nation

Editor Uwatch310 keeps reverting back to the claim that CSULB has "one" of the highest number of applicants in the "nation" and would like to brush over the fact that the total number of applications include many duplicate applicants, meaning one applicant with several applications. First he/she claims that "all" universities do this. When he/she can't find a source for this claim, the explanation changes to UCs do it as well, but yet no source for this claim. Since he/she can't find this information, the explanation changes to it's "common knowledge". Is common knowledge really a good explanation when a source can't be found? The only conclusion that can be made from the applicants statistics is that CSULB has the highest number of applicants in the CSU (not the UC or the nation). Also, what does "one of the highest" based on "common knowledge" mean? Anyone know if this really meets the Wikipedia Standard? @Uwatch310, please do not revert my latest edit and bring it to the Talk page like I have. PLEASE PLAY BY THE RULES AND DO THE SAME. SOURCE YOUR CLAIMS. I HAVE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.131.7 (talk) 05:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

In your last edit, you omitted the part where the article states CSULB is one of the most applied to universities in the nation. That stands true regardless if one student applies to CSULB and other universities. The applicant isn't necessarily a "duplicate" in the sense that you are thinking. When the CSU says there are duplicates, they mean actual people applying to multiple campuses, but that doesn't mean that the nearly 80,000 applications sent to CSULB are also duplicated and sent to other CSU campuses.

What does "one of the most" mean? If you think it's a "top 10" most applied to, then state so and provide your source. "one of the most" is vague puffery. I have listed a source for a known fact that CSUs have roughly 2.5 applications per applicant, meaning one person is counted multiple times. This is a fact that can distort one's perception of the size of the applicant pool. To the best of my research and knowledge, this is NOT what UCs and "most" of the universities around the country do. You've reverted my "sourced" edits claiming and changing unsourced "common knowledge".

My question for you:

1. Why do you keep removing my sourced material?

2. Why do you keep adding unsourced material?

3. Why do you keep changing your reason? For example, All universities and UCs also count duplicates. If you're going to revert other people's work, base it on claims you can prove.

What I propose:

1. You let me add fully sourced information stating that CSUs totals include duplicate applications from a lesser number of applicants.

2. You can prove that UCs and most other universities in the nation do the same.

3. Change your claim from "one of the most" to a "top 10" most applied if you can source that information.

Is it too much to ask for a source and less Puffery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.131.7 (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

A source has been added form USNWR to prove that CSULB is one of the top 10 applied to universities in the nation. YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND that the CSU system actually is unique in that it makes a separate report showing total applications from 1) individuals that applied to only one university, and 2) individuals that applied to multiple universities. The UC system does NOT generate a report like this, and most other university systems don't.

HOWEVER, you are now disputing that individuals don't apply to multiple universities, which is bogus. When one is applying to college, they don't simply apply to one school (especially in this day in age with the competition to get in). For instance - and we will use UCs to satisfy what you're disputing - most high school graduates apply to UCLA and alike schools such as UC Berkeley and UC San Diego. This is now a DUPLICATE applicant - which is exactly what the CSU generates a separate report for. It doesn't mean the individual campus received less applications by any means though.

"It doesn't mean the individual received less applications by any means though." I don't understand what that means - please explain.Contributor321 (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Individual campus - typo.

Please sign your comments. It's very difficult or impossible to follow your conversation with all your edits intermingled. ElKevbo (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You're making too many assumptions as to how UCs and CSUs count applications and what "duplicate" means. Why do you keep removing a sourced reference directly to a CSU publication? It's better than any ASSUMPTION you've been able to produce. If you want to say it's one of the top 10 most applied, why don't you just say so or that it made it into the US News list of "the most". As far as I can tell, that's an outdated link that does not directly correlate to the years you're talking about. If you check the Common Data Sets of those schools, some have surpassed CSULB in recent years such as UCI. I don't see the UCI, UCLA and Berkeley Wiki pages stating that they were one of the MOST. They just lists FACTS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.131.7 (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You can easily access the CDS for all the UCs and CSUs - which is actually what has been done for most of the application sections for the campuses on wikipedia when providing a reference for average GPA, number of applicants, admits, etc., and you'll find that CSULB still maintains itself. The only UC to enter into the potential "top 10" category would be UC Irvine when comparing application numbers (49K in 2011 vs. 60K in 2013). And I believe you're wrong, UCLA DOES have some literature about it being the most applied to school in the nation - because it is and has been for a couple years. The list is not "outdated," it's from 2011, and you HAVE to understand that the next list would be from 2012 which would be from this last academic year. That takes time to compile applicant information from all the universities in the nation - so be patient, so the USNWR list that is cited right now stands as current.--Uwatch310 (talk • contribs) time, day month year (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on California State University, Long Beach. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20140215110427/http://www.csulb.edu/depts/enrollment/registration/fees_basics.html to http://www.csulb.edu/depts/enrollment/registration/fees_basics.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150412170901/http://www.asicsulb.org/beachfront/advocacy/152-growbeachuniversitygarden to http://www.asicsulb.org/beachfront/advocacy/152-growbeachuniversitygarden
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://csuchico.edu/sustainablefuture/practices/Chico-DST-final-041905.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071023214805/http://www.ced.csulb.edu/accreditation/introduction/index.html to http://www.ced.csulb.edu/accreditation/introduction/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201133552/http://daf.csulb.edu/offices/univ_svcs/institutionalresearch/dashboard/ to http://daf.csulb.edu/offices/univ_svcs/institutionalresearch/dashboard/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://colleges.usanews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/masters-west-top-public
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130409232023/http://urd.csulb.edu/news-events/story.cfm?hackid=1868 to http://urd.csulb.edu/news-events/story.cfm?hackid=1868
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528165932/http://www.calstate.edu/newsline/Archive/99-00/000519-LB.shtml to http://www.calstate.edu/newsline/Archive/99-00/000519-LB.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090516175803/http://www.jazzandblues.org/index.aspx to http://www.jazzandblues.org/index.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on California State University, Long Beach. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20150905211613/http://web.csulb.edu/divisions/students/presidents_scholars/campus_facts.htm to https://web.csulb.edu/divisions/students/presidents_scholars/campus_facts.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150905211613/http://web.csulb.edu/divisions/students/presidents_scholars/campus_facts.htm to https://web.csulb.edu/divisions/students/presidents_scholars/campus_facts.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150905211613/http://web.csulb.edu/divisions/students/presidents_scholars/campus_facts.htm to https://web.csulb.edu/divisions/students/presidents_scholars/campus_facts.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201193829/http://www.csulb.edu/divisions/students/presidents_scholars/application_process/ to http://www.csulb.edu/divisions/students/presidents_scholars/application_process/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in California State University, Long Beach

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of California State University, Long Beach's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Ethnicity Enrollment Profile":

• From California State University, San Bernardino: "Ethnicity Enrollment Profile". calstate.edu. Retrieved July 9, 2019.
• From California State University, Sacramento: Lewis, Kim (June 2020). "Ethnicity Enrollment Profile". csus.edu. Retrieved 2019-07-09.
• From California State University, Los Angeles: "Ethnicity Enrollment Profile". calstate.edu. Retrieved 2019-07-09.
• From California State Polytechnic University, Pomona: "Ethnicity Enrollment Profile". www.calstate.edu. Retrieved 2019-07-09.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

US Rankings

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