This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Old 2004 discussions
not sure why this was moved; if you move, please click on "what links here" and fix all the double redirects. But isn't "Cal Poly" the conventional term? --Jiang 02:29, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I don't believe this is the right way to go, taking the locations off the names of both Cal Polys isn't really very logical as the cities are part of the offical university names...Punani 08:20, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I guess you are right in saying that this is the more common name even if it is not the proper name of the university. With this in mind, I think that Cal Poly Pomona and Cal Poly would be the most common names. SLO's page refers to it both as this name and as its proper name California Polytechnic State University. This is because they were the Original Cal Poly. Pomona's page refers to it as either the proper name California State Polytechnic University Or as Cal Poly Pomona (no comma). It would be nice if we could keep Cal Poly as a disambig page to help clear all this up, but I understand if we make this the SLO page. Cavebear42 17:21, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
IMO, the article's title should be simply Cal Poly, with link to Cal Poly Pomona at the top. Traditionally, the name Cal Poly unambiguously refers to the university in San Luis Obispo. By having the disambiguation page, you're actually creating an artificial ambiguity where there wasn't one to begin with. Anþony 02:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing carrot top as an alumni. He most defintely attended Florida Atlantic University.
I added the history section, but it will probably need some polishing, reorganizing, and editing. Looking at other college Wikis, the CPSLO history I put together is very date oriented, while the others are more generalized (and enyclopedia-like?). The three sub sections were akward and hard to integrate so I just left them out as subsections, but the organization seems improper. Looking at it now, the linking needs review too... I overlinked on the dates (linked every year). The rest of the article needs some work too. The parking section is pretty biased. Notable alumni could be expanded a bit from [1]. The page could use an athletics section too. Tyro 05:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree, the Parking section is very biased. the Campus section in general needs to be expanded. I will start taking some pics of the campus this week to post on the page. --Samxli 09:14, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Is it just me or is the Admissions section POV, or at least poorly worded? Examples: "The agricultural majors are the easiest [to get into]" "As with everything else, the number of men and women is skewed by major" "It is not unusual for classes in these majors to have few or no members of the opposite sex." -- While these things are true (as a student I agree with these *assessments*), they don't seem fit for encyclopaedic information. It might be worth noting the overall demographics by major compared with the rest of the nation if they merit discussion here at all, or at least by specifying at what rate the amount of women in engineering (for example) is seen to be increasing. AdamRock 17:47, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Foundation Edits
I edited the Foundation Section. It appears someone dumped some text copy of their Mission Statement / Corporate Objectives from one of their annual reports or website that equaled about 25% of the total text in this article. As this is non-credited material that is more along the lines of corporate promotion than anything of factual value I pulled it. As a Cal Poly Alumni I can report first hand that at least from the late 80's onward the Foundation has never been very popular primarily due its monopoly on services on the campus among other reasons so I added that in the discussion. Joeconsumer 10/01/05
The programs and degrees section could use some work. Some items in that list are Majors that don't have their own departments (Software Engineering is a Degree offered by the Computer Science Department), or share departments (Industrial Engineering and Manufacturing Engineering are both offered by the Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering Department). Others are Departments which offer multiple Degrees (The Theatre and Dance Department offers a Major (and minor) in Theatre Arts and a Minor in Dance), or offer only Minors (Such as the Ethnic Studies and Womens Studies Departments). --Arscott 06:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
University Graphic Systems (UGS) is also part of the foundation i do believe
coed/all-male/coed?
Why were women banned from the school from 1929-1956? (Alphaboi867 05:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC))
The reason sited is that in 1929 the budget was cut so they saved money by banning women.
SLOWeather link
I believe this constitutes link spam. The site isn't referenced anywhere in the article and has no direct relation to the university. Anþony 02:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Polytechnic Universities
I'm removing this line as just off the top of my head, I can think of more than six; Cal Poly SLO, Cal Poly Pomona, MIT, CalTech, Georgia Tech, Florida Tech, Texas Tech, RIT, etc. --WHSTalk 05:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
As a student at M.I.T., I can assure you that an "Institute of Technology" is not the same thing as a "Polytechnic" university.
Renaming to be less ambiguous
The first line is "California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (or Cal Poly for short), not to be confused with Cal Poly Pomona". So, renaming article to match and also the part about being confused will not be needed if you mention where this is. --MarsRover 00:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
There are not two "California Polytechnic State University" campuses at all. One school--San Luis Obispo--is called "California Polytechnic State University", and the other--Pomona--is called "California State Polytechnic University". Notice the difference? The city names are not in the official names of either university. In fact, when both campuses were granted CSU status, their names were set up as they are today to prevent confusion among the campuses. Thus, this move is inappropriate. --Anonymous User: 67.169.80.113
Good point with the reversed order of the words. If you have references of the founders setting it up that was to avoid confusion might be good for the article.
But I am sure you have noticed there still is confusion. Two campuses in the CSU system with same common name "Cal Poly" with about the same number of students. That why people keep puttin "SLO" or "San Luis Obispo" after "Cal Poly". Since neither campus has the city in the official name and they are basically sister schools lets be consistant and put the city after both. At first glance I though someone setup a master article about both schools. --MarsRover 04:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Lets keep the articles titled to reflect the actual school names. I edited the begining of this article in an attempt to preserve the real name while providing clarification about which university was in question. I used the style from [[2]]. If you take a look at the ways people arrive at each article, there is not much risk for being directed wrongly. Searching for Cal Poly brings up a disambig page. Searching by location with 'Cal Poly San Luis Obispo' or 'Cal Poly Pomona' will bring the specific page. !Tyro 06:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, I found this on naming conventions:
http://www.calpoly.edu/warc/universityid/univnameuse.htmlandhttp://www.csupomona.edu/~visitors/tour/heritage/ (which says "When University status was granted in 1972, Cal Poly College, Pomona became California State Polytechnic University, Pomona."). Therefore, both this article and the Cal Poly Pomona articles have correct titles that match their official names. Tyro 07:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
That's fine with me. Where is wierd is from the category view where you just have the university name. I liked the mirroring disambiguity header at the top of both articles. You can bounce back and forth to get your bearings. They are related campuses so it has some utility. Although it already been removed from Cal Poly Pomona article. Que sera sera. --MarsRover
I'll reply to MarsRover here instead of my talk page. The reasoning for me removing the other uses template on California State Polytechnic University, Pomona is because it clearly states Pomona in the article's title. There is no question of ambiguity in my opinion on that article. However, on this article, the otheruses template makes a little more sense as the article title (rightly, as that is the school's name) makes no mention of either SLO or Pomona and so there is a higher chance of confusion for the reader. If there is a question of ambiquity on the Pomona page, feel free to reinsert the template, but I just didn't feel that it was needed. Happy editing. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Contrary to what was said above, the official name of Cal Poly Pomona is exactly California State Polytechnic University, Pomona including the comma and Pomona. The official name of Cal Poly is exactly California Polytechnic State University, with no reference to the city in which it resides. Cal Poly Pomona's identity guidelines note that the name of the university should always include Pomona and should never be abbreviated as Cal Poly without Pomona. On the other hand, Cal Poly's identity guidelines go to great lengths to divorce the name of the university from San Luis Obispo. The guidelines suggest that if necessary, the university may be referred to as "Cal Poly in San Luis Obispo" or "California Polytechnic State Unviersity in San Luis Obispo," but states explicitly that "these forms are not to be used in titles, mastheads, or key identifiers." -Anþony 08:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I closed the requested moves request as no consensus. If anyone doesn't agree, you can always relist the request here. --Woohookitty(meow) 09:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Notable alumni
A couple entries in the Notable alumni section are questionable:
Eric Breverman, Rock and roll music phenom.
Nicholas Wilby, Developer/Tester of recently deployed male birth control pill, "Spermbgon"
I'm going to delete them, but I just wanted to make a note here just in case. Perfect13thStep 18:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
People constantly add bogus or non-notable names to the alumni list it seems. Good job, I say :) Tyro 07:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
"Highly selective"
I removed the sentence
Cal Poly's admissions process is highly selective.
and instead, moved a sentence from the following paragraph up to replace it:
In Fall 2006, 31,103 students applied to Cal Poly, and 11,726 were accepted (37%). Of those accepted, 3,836 (38%) enrolled.
The sentence "Cal Poly's admissions process is highly selective" is a good example of a peacock term. It doesn't actually mean anything in particular, because there's no agreed-upon definition of "highly selective." It's just a way of paying Cal Poly a compliment. As such, it is (slightly) non-neutral and a (mild) example of academic boosterism.
Instead, I replaced it with the actual percentages. The reader can judge how selective 37% is.
"Let the facts speak for themselves. If the ice hockey player, canton, or species of beetle is worth the reader's time, it will come out in the facts. Insisting on its importance clutters the writing and adds nothing." Dpbsmith(talk) 23:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
P. S. I continue to be absolutely baffled as to why a college's "selectivity" is considered a positive factor, or anything anybody should care about. It sounds like Groucho Marx's comment, "I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member." Dpbsmith(talk) 00:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
[3] has continued to insert "highly selective" into the article, so I have informed him/her about the three revert rule. Further reverting after this can be reported on the 3RR violations page. Tyro 08:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
This Article needs improvement
Recommend some more fun activities such as farmer's market, its close location to the ocean, etc, or student clubs and activities. Improved pictures desired.
I'm changing the date of completion to 2003, because I'm pretty sure I was living in the Cerro Vista apartments between fall '03 and spring '04. mzellman 05:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd prefer for you to find and cite a source rather than relying on your memory of what "you're pretty sure" of. I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm saying that given that a question has been raised it, should be answered by citing a source. See WP:VDpbsmith(talk) 16:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I was understating my certainty there. I resided in the Cerro Vista apartments from Fall 2003 to Spring 2004. There's a source here: [4]mzellman (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Athletics
I noticed this article doesn't mention anything about Cal Poly athletics, except for the 1960 plane crash and the templates at the bottom. Since the team competes in Division I in all (or most) sports, I believe athletics should get some mention here. I would start it, but I really don't know too much about the sports at school... Cowmeister88 07:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Lacrosse (USLIA), crew, rugby, bicycling, rodeo (NIRA),... are club level with national club championships. The rest are D1.--68.126.28.93 (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Song texts
It doesn't seem helpful or appropriate to have the text of the alumni and fight songs. I looked at a few other good university articles, and they did not have them. Basar 04:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Main Logo
Changed main logo to look more professional and similar to actual University logo. (Justsomeboi 23:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC))
I would like to see a section that explains the meaning of the Cal Poly logo - the shield (where it says Discere Faciendo). David Straight (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Campus
This section claims that Cal Poly is the largest land-owning university in the State of California. I believe that in fact UC Berkeley is the largest land holder. Cal Poly's own website confirms this: http://www.calpoly.edu/aboutcp.html
Unless anyone objects I am going to make the relevant changes to that sentence.
its the largest in the csu system. 75.26.158.199 (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually - from what I can determine - Poly IS larger than UC Berkeley. From "http://polyland.calpoly.edu/overview/index.html" there is a claim that the university has almost 10,000 acres between the main campus and the farm in Santa Cruz. This is much larger than the number claimed in the article. This is also larger than the 6K acres claimed in the UD Berkeley article (which I couldn't independently substantiate one way or the other... I believe that the 10,000 acre claim though not exact - is the best number I can find and it seems authoritative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ka6s (talk • contribs) 04:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Cal Poly's owns 9,678 acres vs. Berkeley's 6,679 acres: in fact, Berkeley is no longer the largest landowner in the UC system and is actually #3 behind Davis (7,309 acres) and Merced (7,045 acres), according to "University of California 10/11 Annual Financial Report", p.8-9. (http://finreports.universityofcalifornia.edu/index.php?file=10-11/pdf/fullreport_1011.pdf). I'm going to revert to "Cal Poly is the largest land-owning university in the State of California." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributor321 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Is there a reference that states this in case there are private universities that own more land? Or, it can state "public university." 72Dino (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Good point. I amended the language to state that Cal Poly is the largest land-holding public university in CA. Don't know if it's the largest if private colleges/universities are included. Will do some research.Contributor321 (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Expansion
Added expansion section. All information based on Cal Poly Master Plan and Cal Poly Facilities and Planning. Edit: Fixed copywrite problems.(Justsomeboi 00:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC))
Colleges
Changed title of colleges to the official name of colleges.
For example, Business is officially Orfaela College of Business. (Justsomeboi 00:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC))
Alumni
I think we need an alumni section as most universities have a section dedicated to memorable or noteworthy alumni.
Indeed, we have a whole article for it found in the see also section. Basar 01:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Images
Basar has a good point about removing the images and putting it in a commons section. However, I believe the main page should encorporate more images of the University. Removing the images takes away from the main page. Wikipedia users of USC, for example, have set out to put as many images representing the university as they can (without being repetative. I think its only repatative if the same structures are displayed. (Justsomeboi 01:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC))
It's fine to add more, but I think the USC article is quite excessive. There is a delicate balance that needs to be achieved when adding pictures. Furthermore, pictures ideally illustrate the text of the article which the current ones do not. For example, a picture of the campus from the 50s would be excellent for the history section. I personally like the image density of Boston, Massachusetts. Basar 01:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Student Life and ASI
Being that ASI is the main student government here in Cal Poly, employing hundreds of Cal Poly student, I think and ASI section should be added. I'll try to work on that section. Also Student Life should be exapnded being that the activities and extra curriculars that Cal Poly offers help define the Cal Poly atmosphere and give readers a better glimpse of the "personality" of Cal Poly and its students, faculty, and stuff. Such topics that could be covered could be the large intramural fields, traditions (such as P being lit during games), recreation center, Week of Welcome, and emphasis on the many clubs in Cal Poly. (Justsomeboi 15:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
Rankings
The USNEWS rankings are now updated with the 2008 ranking. Good job to cal poly for continuing and increasing its academic excellence!
(Justsomeboi 20:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC))
Cal Poly Infobox
Most universities on Wikipedia have a large infobox on the bottom of their article with a list of all the schools and such. Cal Poly Pomona just added one to their entry. How can we make one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.184.105 (talk) 22:10, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
All right I made an infobox based on the CSU Pomona infobox. Please help in editing it and finding Cal Poly articles that can be added to the infobox. Thanks to Basar to the instructions on adding one! (Justsomeboi 23:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC))
Commonly used names of the university
Note: I am copying over a discussion thread from my talk page to the article talk page to allow more editors to weigh in. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I respectfully object to your reversion of my edit in the Cal Poly article, and stand by my position on the naming of the school. As I do not want the incorrect information that you have re-inserted into the article to remain, how do I go about changing the situation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.57.143.208 (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to differentiate between what the university considers correct usage of the name and, as the first sentence states, what it is "commonly called". It is called just Cal Poly per their style guide and probably by those on the Central Coast. However, those outside of the area, including the CSU system itself, commonly refers to the university as Cal Poly San Luis Obispo or Cal Poly SLO. In fact, section 89005 of the Education Code refers to the name "California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo." I do not recall ever seeing it Cal Poly at San Luis Obispo. My edit, with its reference (which you removed), still stands. Alanraywiki (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe the university knows what it's own name is, as shown clearly in the reference listed--which you removed. I think we should get an administrator involved in this matter. How do we do so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.57.143.208 (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Your reference is still there . . . see note 3. And the first step to resolving this issue would be to move this discussion from my talk page to the article talk page to allow more editors to weigh in. I will copy this thread over. Alanraywiki (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
"I believe the university knows what it's own name is". Priceless.--Dabackgammonator (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep in mind in the article, CSU San Luis Obispo, CSU SLO, are not official names nor are they commonly used names, as far as I know such titles are used more so by individuals wishing to harm the prestige of Cal Poly or use the university prestige to boost prestige of other university in the CSU system. Therefore referencing such names to Cal Poly would not be NPOV as such titles are not used commonly nor officially. I still think it is outrageous editors of the CPP page are using biased, misinterpreted data for admissions rate. Simply, content between the universities exist because there is a significant difference of difficulty in admissions between the two universities (officially 68% vs 33%) from acceptance rate and gpa of accepted students. Such content can be seen in large facebook groups: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=2200368459 . Justsomeboi (talk) 05:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Focusing only on the name issue, I'd like to offer an outside opinion from the point of view of someone with no connection to the CSU system. Far from being evidence of malicious intent, the frequent, confused use of incorrect names for campuses within the California State University system should be seen as an understandable symptom of the drastically inconsistent naming conventions used within CSU. UC campus names have been fairly straightforward since Southern Branch was renamed: the formula is invariably "University of California, Somewhere [abbreviate as necessary]." CSU, on the other hand, given its development as the gradual amalgamation of all the other public universities in California, has no discernable, set formula, and those not intimately familiar with the PR materials put out by a given campus will often have to make a best guess as to what the hell to call the place.
A campus could be called "California State University, Somewhere," in line with the UC naming formula, or it could be called "Somewhere State University" -- but not both at the same time. Campuses with one of those two arrangements may have used the other arrangement at some point in the past, but then switched to the other. Then you have the utterly confusing California State Polytechnic University and California Polytechnic State University, one of which apparently spawned the other, but which are now totally separate, other than that Charles B. Reed is Chancellor over both, and both report to the same Board of Trustees. Of these two schools using a permutation of "University," "California," "State," and "Polytechnic" for their names, only one is allowed to call itself "Cal Poly" without a disclaimer, apparently on the basis of seniority. But don't dare call either of them "CSU," because, even though they're campuses of the California State University, they're really not all that really, really, you know? Throw on top of that a campus whose name can't be spelled correctly without a special character unavailable on standard, US English keyboards and a total wild card like the California Maritime Academy, and you have a recipe for thoroughly confused outsiders.
So -- please don't take offense at the occasional faux pas. If this naming issue is as important as the heated response to it indicates, then it is worth a detailed explanation of what names are proper, what names incite consternation, and why; preferably in the History section. There is a perfect place to air out the naming issue for this campus under California Polytechnic State University#Relationship with Cal Poly Pomona (a section that should be mirrored at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona). Now, who has some sources to get us started? --Dynaflowbabble 11:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The reason the Cal Poly Pomona and Cal Poly naming becomes a heated debate does not stem from Cal Poly being commonly referenced to as CSU San Luis Obispo but because the original Cal Poly Pomona article failed to state that the term "Cal Poly" without the location designator is officially wrong. The general population in Southern California does not even know that Cal Poly is truly referenced Cal Poly San Luis Obispo nor do they even know such a university exists. The wikipedia article has the responsibility to make it clear that such naming conventions refers to the university in San Luis Obispo. Now the use of CSU San Luis Obispo is officially wrong and not commonly used, when used, as shown in the citation from a university with only relation to Cal Poly by being part of the CSU (biased sources), it is used in a erroneous way. Shall we list all the minor errors that the university is rarely called such as Cal Poly Slow, Polytechnic institute, and so on?
Naming convention of Cal Poly should stick to common and official terms used. Obviously editor of the naming convention does not know commonly used names of the university as such person has no affiliation to the university as he/she stated. (Justsomeboi (talk) 06:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC))
The fact that Cal Poly is a CSU is never hidden, the article's first statement: "California Polytechnic State University, officially recognized as Cal Poly,[3] is a nationally ranked public university located in San Luis Obispo, California, USA. Cal Poly is one of the 23 general purpose campuses of the California State University system (CSU) and is the second largest land-holding university in California." clearly defines cal poly as a CSU. Saying that CSU San Luis obispo is an official name/common name, when it is not, is misleading and misguided. If Cal Poly used www.csusanluisobispo.edu as a website URL then it would be a different story, but it does not. (Justsomeboi (talk) 01:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC))
Your last argument doesn't hold up: Cal Poly Pomona uses www.csupomona.edu, despite that not ever having been an official name ("mistakes were made").--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I am not affiliated with Cal Poly Pomona and therefore would not know all their official names, common names, or correct identification associated with the university, as you are affiliated with that university and know their identification is not CSU Pomona then edit that article accordingly. However, as for Cal Poly, CSU San Luis Obispo is not a correct name, official name, nor common name. As stated, you might as well include every type of incorrect names Cal Poly has been titled. However, quality wikipedia articles do not include such irrelevant information. (Justsomeboi (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC))
I revised the name section in an attempt to cover all bases. Is there anything more that should be added? --Dynaflowbabble 09:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Your revision gives a great npov describing the name identity of the university. (Justsomeboi (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC))
I think both this article and the Cal Poly Pomona article are biased and plagued with peacock terms. I saw in both talk pages and page history that a group of editors treat this project as a battleground. They just reflect how ignorant and closed minded students at both universities are.--76.175.187.51 (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you have some specific examples of unsourced peacock terms (in either article) so that they may be addressed? Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
The only battle going on here is trying to find NPOV and accurate ways to depict the naming convention of the university which stemmed from CPP article confusion of using Cal Poly without the reference designator. Unless you can show direct peacock terms that need to be corrected then point them out. There is no question of neutrality in terms of any other sections. I think dynaflow's edit is one everyone can agree on.
Please sign your posts. Also note: "The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic." You have not provide any explanation to which part of the article is NPOV. The article may have been NPOV just 2 days ago (under name section), but I believe editors of this page have come to a consensus on a NPOV article. Please ensure you know what the NPOV tag is for, before adding it. Clearly show us where peacock terms are located so we may all find a way to achieve a fully NPOV article. Otherwise, your abusing the NPOV tag. (Justsomeboi (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC))
Due to the fact there is no basis for the NPOV tag, and the accuser has not stated a specific reason or a valid reason at that, I will remove the NPOV tag. (Justsomeboi (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC))
As I remember it, Sacramento decided that one would be CPSU and the other would be CSPU. SLO's university president went to Sacramento the day of the decision and made sure they got CPSU and it's [EDIT: trademarked]. That's why you'll never see "Cal Poly" on anything from Pomona. (if this helps give research direction)76.209.221.203 (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
It can't possibly be copyrighted and it wouldn't matter even if it were. It is, on the other hand, trademarked.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Student Life
Much more happens in the university than the greek organization or residence halls. Topics noteworthy of mention include the many clubs on campus, university hour, Week of Welcome, Open House, Recreation on campus, student impact on the city of San Luis Obispo, and ASI (student government). Anyone with information on this want to help on expanding the student life section? (Justsomeboi (talk) 08:17, 12 October 2008 (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!
The beginning paragraph states that Cal Poly is the second largest university as far as land. However, in the "campus" section it's states that Cal Poly is the largest landholding university. Which one is it?--Coching (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
its the largest in the CSU system. the largest within all state owned universities(both cal state and uc) is UC Berkeley (commonly referred by sports fans as Cal) 75.25.16.110 (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Whose naming controversy?
I see no need to edit-war this. Clearly in the case of Cal Poly Pomona, there is a disconnect between common use on the one hand and accuracy on the other. That article covers the issue. In the case of Cal Poly, the issues are minor, certainly no greater than for "Chico State" or any other CSU campus. There's no need to dwell on it here.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
funny you say this because both schools build the rose float. their logo says cal poly rose float. the best thing to do it just to think about it this way their is really one cal poly, but two campuses(just like ASU). both use a wild horse under different names as mascots and use the same school colors green and gold. both campuses have many streets with the same name. both campuses also have almost identical building layouts(streets are curved) so in reality its one cal poly but in two different locations. :) Javiern (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I looked at the 2010 float just yesterday; it says "Cal Poly Universities". Continuing your mental exercise, both are equally close to the ocean, both have a high percentage of non-white students, and both are south of Paso Robles. Since they are the same, I'm sure the Mustangs won't mind of the Broncos use part of their endowment. :-) --Curtis Clark (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Uh, have you ever been to San Luis Obispo? Much closer to the ocean than Pomona, and it seems almost everybody is white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.8.73 (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The name usage page states that the formal names are "California Polytechnic State University and Cal Poly". Cal Poly San Luis Obispo is considered an improper name. I have thus changed the first sentence to reflect the two formal names, and not include the San Luis Obispo.[1] --Dpdx (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
We don't work for the university so we're not bound by their policies. And their policies don't necessarily affect what others say and so which is what we document here. ElKevbo (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The university branding guidelines are guidelines for everyone's use, not just internal use. With regard to athletics, there are separate and more restrictive branding guidelines. Additionally, there is the official NCAA names, Cal Poly and Cal Poly Pomona. Thus when referring to athletics, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo should never be used. Non-athletically, there is a little more room, but yes Cal Poly is the preferred short form. If you are absolutely insistent upon using San Luis Obispo and don't want to use the full name, you should add a comma or "at" before "San Luis Obispo" but Cal Poly or California Polytechnic State University is preferred.--CriticalThinking26 (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Remove dubious flagship claim
The first line of the article says Cal Poly-SLO is the "flagship" university of the CSU and has two sources,
Not even UC Berkeley has a flagship claim on its article. I will remove this ridiculous claim unless there's a change in California legislature that would support this stupidity.--Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
And those universities are free to make the claim if they wish. The "dubious" ASI reference is referring to Charles B. Reed, chancellor of the CSU. Marco--just because you don't like cited material doesn't mean you should remove it. And by the way, obviously the California legislature supports stupidity: it created Cal Poly Pomona. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.205.242 (talk) 10:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
You'd think they would have learned their lesson with San Luis Obispo. "What a worthless cow college. Let's create another!" :-) --Curtis Clark (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thats cold. but the csu system does not have a flagship campus. in other states, the flagship campus is always considered to be the first campus. in that case, it would be uc Berkeley for the uc and san jose for the csu. however, the state does not mention about any flagship campus. also citing claims from ASI does not make a source correct or true.Javiern (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Let's not forget that California State University, Stanislaus is also the flagship campus of the California State University, Stanislaus system consisting of
Cal Poly Pomona is not the flagship campus. With 22 members, that category is already too crowded.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I know a good flag officer who would agree with Golden Bear's claim for flagship status. On the other hand, if Cal Poly-SLO becomes the flagship, maybe it would change its name to a more suitable HMS Cal Poly. 1st officer, set sail for Trafalgar!
Marco: you're attempting to put up straw man arguments here, which certainly indicates that you don't have any real basis to stand on. Nobody is claiming there is such a thing as a "California State University, Stanlislaus system." As there is no such thing as a Cal Poly system (something I imagine you wish there was), your argument is inapplicable here. The ASI reference is particularly reliable: it represents the official minutes of a the ASI Board of Directors, was attended by many high-level university officials, such as Dr. Lilly (ASI Executive Director), Dr. Gonzalez (VP of Student Affairs), Dr. Hood ((Academic Senate Chair), and Dan Geis, ASI President. The reference is citing Charles Reed, chancellor of the CSU system who plainly stated what the article is asserting. There is absolutely zero evidence that this is somehow an incorrect or untrue. In the absence of such, there really is no basis to imply that it somehow is a conspiracy by Cal Poly, Charles Reed, and various Cal Poly officials. The fact that a couple of disgruntled Cal Poly Pomona editors--especially extremists like Marco Guzman--don't like it, is irrelevant. If we are going to start making baseless criticisms of clearly cited material, I would like to go ahead and challenge Cal Poly Pomona's admissions data it publishes. There are so many idiots that attend CPP, I highly doubt the average admited GPA even breaks 3.0. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.205.242 (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
no an asi claim is not reliable since ASi comments are more of a way to sway votes and favoritism towards any leader. its basic politics.75.25.13.86 (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
You have got to be kidding me. These are official minutes. Your opinion does not trump an accurate citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.205.242 (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
How can you claim that the official minutes aren't reliable? There were many very high ranking and knowledgable officials who were in attendance. Have you ever attended a meeting in industry? The job of the secretary is to take accurate and complete notes such that other people who were not in attendance may get a complete summary. Your claim that these minutes are not reliable suggests that those members in attendance were somehow lying. The chancellor of the CSU system describing Cal Poly SLO as the flagship of the system should be the end of discussion. If you are able to find official minutes from meetings of this prestige that support your position, then please them. Surely they would be better than the cites used on the Pamona page, which include broken links to the Pamona student run newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.71.232.58 (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
they are not because although the official minutes state everything that is said during a meeting, the statements that come out of asi leaders mouth are not.75.30.124.170 (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)please sign your comments
(outdent) Just to add yet another campus named a flagship campus, some minutes to a meeting at the CSU Chancellor's Office identifies Northridge (page 43) as a flagship campus. As recommended in the following section, I think the sentence should be removed. The CSU just does not have an official flagship. Alanraywiki (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Chancellor Charles B. Reed's opinion is subjective, and does not constitute policy making by the Board of Trustees of the California State University or California State Legislature. I propose to remove this opinion from the article as it adds no context.
"those of us in 'systems' of higher education are frequently actively discouraged from using the term 'flagship' to refer to our campuses because it is seen as hurtful to the self-esteem of colleagues at other institutions in our systems. The use of the term is seen by some as elitist and boastful. It is viewed by many, in the context of the politics of higher education, as 'politically incorrect.' ... Only in the safe company of alumni is one permitted to use the term." [2]
I'm sure there are other ways to convey Cal Poly SLO's sense of academic grandeur.
--Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Marco, I'm sure there are other ways that you can find to vandalize the Cal Poly article. The article is not saying that it is an "official" flagship--just that it has been "referred to" as such. Just as the Cal Poly Pomona article goes to great lengths to say that it has been referred to as "Cal Poly" by locals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.205.242 (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I think is safe to assume that your stance is to maintain the flagship claim. As much as I differ from it, I thank you for your input.--Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Considering how many CSUs claim flagship status, being a flagship campus is no distinction at all. So if that's the best Cal Poly can do, let them have at it, and they, SDSU, SJSU, CSUN, and the Golden Bear can duke it out.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
i thought articles in wikipedia were not supposed to biased adding a statement as such makes an article biased75.30.124.170 (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
To the contrary, removing the reference would be biased. The citation clearly supports the assertion being made. Just because a Pomona editor doesn't like it, well, tough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.205.242 (talk) 07:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia wants credibility for the articles right? yes. then comments like so need to go away75.30.126.209 (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
NPOV issues with article
Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.
"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with "Verifiability" and "No original research." Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.75.28.111.248 (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
reading the articles intro is not within [npov] this needs to be resolvedJaviern (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
We want to talk about NPOV, let's look at Dartmouth College's intro. Now that's a private institution and member of the Ivy League with ad-infinitum accolades, famous alumni, rankings, endowment, students with 4.99 GPAs, 1599/2399 SATs and 35 ACTs, yet, only 4 numbers appear on its intro,
Number of programs
Total enrollment
Total area
Number of varsity sports
Let's strive for something resembling Dartmouth article's conciseness and elegance.
Like I said before, chancellor Reed's opinion is biased and is not a substitute for state legislature. University of California, Berkeley has more merits in all fronts to claim state-wide flagship status and there's no mention of such thing on its article because doing so would be against NPOV policy.
"Well, let's go through the criteria for "flagship" as objective. On the oldest score, Berkeley certainly *is* the oldest, and first, since it was founded in 1861. The second UC campus was UCLA which was founded in the 1920s. In terms of most prestigious, it is the number one public university in the country, and by various rankings is ahead of the other schools in the UC system, but some of those "lesser" schools rank ahead of the majority of the universities in the US (UCLA, again and UCSD). Finally, in terms of money and funding, these days, the UCSD campus may actually bring in more money than the Berkeley campus, in part due to the licensing agreements and spin-offs from the high-tech and bio-tech industries that UCSD has spun off... It's hard to be absolutely certain with this, since it depends on exactly how the numbers are calculated. In any case, the other schools are certainly on par with Berkeley in some of these other measures of prestige and money, and it[sic] only the earlier founding of Berkeley that makes it the "flagship" and if this is all that counts, then "earliest" is sufficient to convey the factual status without entering into the use of a "elitist and boastful" word (as Robert Berdahl himself called it). Edhubbard (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)"
NPOV is reporting what the Chancellor said. It is not stating what he said as a fact. And saying that his expressed opinion carries additional weight is, absent a reference saying that it does, original research.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
that's the thing what he said was an opinion but is being treated here as a fact. not all sources are reliable on the internet. the same as in academics. there is no official document(through the California Postsecondary Education Commission or the CA State Board of Education/csu Board of Trustees) that states the cal poly is a flagship campus this is his own opinion. therefore its original research 75.24.251.243 (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe this will help cool things down. I made it clear in the lead that the chancellor referred to Cal Poly as the flagship, not that it was an official position. How's that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.205.242 (talk) 06:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
To me it still looks like boosterism. A one-time, unofficial (unofficial because there is no designated flagship campus) comment does not belong in an encyclopedia. I think it should be left off and it definitely should not be the second sentence of the article. Alanraywiki (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article to exhibit boosterism, but completely appropriate for it to report boosterism by others that exists in reliable sources. Arguably, putting Reed's statement in the lead makes the article boosterish. But the statement itself is noteworthy. If I were President of SDSU, CSUN, or SJSU (or the captain of the Golden Bear :-), I'd be somewhat taken aback by the statement. If there were sufficient material, a section "Status of Cal Poly in the California State Uiversity" could cover a lot of ground.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. The article merely states what Chancellor Reed said, nothing more. In the very article you cite, it is stated that we need to "use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance." This is exactly what the article does--it states the fact that Chancellor Reed said this, and cites to him. It make no further claims or interpretations. Let the reader decide what weight, if any, to give the statement. If your definition of a peacock term were to be used, then we would need to do a MAJOR overhaul of the Cal Poly Pomona article, which would otherwise be rife with such terms.
but then that would be original research which would be NPOV. you have to realize that Reed is a politician. that means he will say anything to get people to like him75.24.250.6 (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)PLEASE SIGN YOUR COMMENTS
"you have to realize that Reed is a politician. that means he will say anything to get people to like him" --> who's doing the original research?
There was a similar discussion regarding UC Berkeley's flagship status (here) and the result was to remove claims and merely let other more readily verifiable facts do the talk. Like User:Amerique said in the discussion, "there are potentially less controversial ways of saying the same thing." So, can we please remove it? --Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually could anyone of you remove it? If I do it, User:71.202.205.242 might take it personal and I don't want to engage in a edit war. Thank you.--Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
There is no consensus to remove it; as such, it will be put back if you do. Furthermore, if this is how we are going to treat articles, I think it's time to perform a major overhaul on CPP's.
Have you read UC Berkeley's talk page about the similar discussion? Did you see the compromise they reached? How do you propose to do otherwise for SLO's article?--Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, but what editors on the Berkeley article chose to do isn't relevant; the article doesn't claim that Cal Poly is the flagship, just that the chancellor referred to it as such. I've already tried to compromise with you here, by explicitly stating that the flagship claim was only made by Charles Reed, as opposed to being official. However, you haven't offered any compromise other than complete removal. Your attempt to censor that is pushing a POV agenda. The fact is, Charles Reed referred to Cal Poly as such. The article merely states this. Let the reader decide what weight to give it, as opposed to you deciding for them. Hiding this fact from the reader is inherently POV. SDSU also makes a flagship claim, and I don't see you attacking their article.
I agree, San Diego State's claim should be taken a look at and be removed as well.--Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
It is indeed noteworthy that Reed made that statement, and I agree that it should stand. (It would IMO be worthwhile to add any similar statements he has made about other CSU campuses to their articles.)--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with Dr. Clark. The claim is far-reaching and not a substitute for California State Legislature decision on the establishment of a flagship campus. I don't think it is noteworthy for an encyclopedia.--Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 03:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Dr. Clark. Let the reader decide what weight to give to the statement; Marco, you don't need to substitute your judgment for theirs. As long as the article makes clear that it is chancellor Reed making the statement, then it should be fine.
In the spirit of compromise, why don't we move the statement down to the intro of the "rankings" section? It would be given less prominence in the article overall, but wouldn't be deleted in its entirety. How about it?
i think in the overview section where it is currently is ok. putting it in the ranking section would most likely cause more booster issues. as long as it is not in the very introduction of the article. not very encyclopedic if in the introJaviern (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
"Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation".
"Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources."
Marco, are you just trying to argue for the sake of arguing? To address your ridiculous argument-->your rule quotation is inapplicable. The article is not interpreting anything, it is just stating that he said Cal Poly is the flagship. If it tried to interpret this as an official position of the CSU, for example, that would be interpreting. It does not. Thus, no secondary source is required. As a practical matter, the source is official minutes from a meeting at Cal Poly. What other source would have that material? You are attacking this official document without a shred of evidence that it is somehow a fringe conspiracy by Cal Poly officials. Merely quoting Chancellor Reed is not controversial or exceptional. This is a quote. Only people who were there could accurately attest to it being made, and they did so in official minutes.
I'd also like to add, using the language you referenced, that the article is not portraying Chancellor Reed's position as accepted as the CSU; it's just stating that he personally said it. And finally, you are attacking official Cal Poly minutes--of a meeting attending by numerous high-ranking Cal Poly officials--upon what basis? Your opinion? Hardly reliable. You may notice that the CPP article makes claims to the CPP student paper and payscale.com; where are your objections there? Give me a break pal. Stop trolling this entry and start making some constructive edits.
You have your focus all over the place. California State Polytechnic University, Pomona has its own article and any disputes should go there. If you have any problem with that article, or any other article for that matter, make the changes as you find appropriate. Wikipedia does not censor. That being said, however, Wikipedia does have a set of policies regarding the verifiability of sources and right now I'm questioning a Cal Poly SLO article's source which claims it is the "flagship campus" of the California State University. In my judgment, the entry does not add content to the article, and merely constitute academic boosterism. Something which Wikipedia is strongly against per Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism.
In addition, please refrain from calling me names like "troll" or the likes. If anything you are the one who have acted disrespectful towards me and other contributors. Here, here, and here. Also, please start signing your posts already, PLEASE!
(This revision.) It is noteworthy that the Chancellor called Cal Poly the flagship campus in 1998 (my guess is that he's made similar statements about other campuses). Reed's opinion in this case is far more noteworthy than any of our opinions. But it is still an opinion. The article reports it factually (at least none of you seem to dispute that). I see no boosterism in its current location. Can we please drop it? If the articles on other CSU campuses state that they are the flagship based on less evidence, perhaps those should be edited instead.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Very well Doctor. I respect you too much to engage in an argument over SLO. If you do see it as an honest attempt at improving the article I'll compromise and no longer pursue the matter.--Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
so can i now drop the npov tag. in its current location it is not boosterism because where it is currently at, it is more of a historical point.Javiern (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Recently, an editor changed the name of this article without any consensus whatsoever. As most editors here know, the naming of these articles (Cal Poly and Cal Poly Pomona) has proven to be highly controversial, and any move should at least attempt to get consensus. I strongly object to the article name change--especially the unilateral nature of it--and request it be changed back to what it has been for a significant period of time. 50.136.142.236 (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
This is Cal Poly San Luis Obispo's main logo per its own graphic standards. The campus facts from CSU Mentor also use that name. CalState.edu uses California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. Cal Poly San Luis Obispo and Cal Poly should be used to describe Cal Poly SLO as much as CSU Pomona and Cal Poly Pomona are used to describe Cal Poly. (EDIT: The regional body which assessed Cal Poly San Luis Obispo's July 3, 2012 WASC accreditation uses California Polytechnic University State University, San Luis Obispo and Cal Poly SLO in their final commission letter).--Marco Guzman, Jr Talk 03:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I concur with Marco; Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and is descriptive, not prescriptive. I have to wonder, are you ashamed of the town or something?--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm truly baffled. San Luis Obispo is a beautiful city at the heart of wine country. More examples of the use of the university's long name: Forbes, Kiplinger, US News. I've come across various journals that also do, but here's just a few: MRS Bulletin, Chemical and Engineering News.
Marco, I'd have to say that I find your comments somewhat disingenuous. I think the issue is not with liking (or disliking) a city or area, but rather one of accuracy. While I see many demands to "talk it out" here on this page, it seems that you have no problem changing the article unilaterally, only then to demand consensus. Where was the consensus when chaning the entire name of this article? That was a stunning and drastic move, one that at the least should have been discussed here. Furthermore, if we are going to hash out the name in the lede, we're going to have to put information that "Cal Poly" is an official and commonly used name of the university - it is certainly just as relevant as your demand to include the informal "San Luis Obispo." There is already a whole naming section on this. 67.180.12.189 (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I've gone back and reviewed the whole name change thing, and I think that was a mistake--California Polytechnic State University is unambiguous. On the other hand, by the magic of redirects, it doesn't matter all that much. What does matter is the censorship of "Cal Poly San Luis Obispo" in the lede. And it's censorship, plain and simple. Even the university uses the term. It's not the "official name" of the university (just as Cal Poly Pomona and Ohio State University are not official names), but Wikipedia ordinarily includes alternate names in its articles (it is, after all, an encyclopedia). I have seen no rationale for removing the term (as contrasted with renaming the article); if I have missed the rationale, could someone provide a diff?--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps using "California Polytechnic State University" followed by a parenthetical "(San Luis Obispo)" would serve as a compromise between the two options? In my opinion, "California Polytechnic State University" is not entirely unambiguous. Indeed, as I referenced above, several third party publications used the geographical locator as a way to disambiguate the two--most importantly of them all the Cal State University system who occasionally refers the two merely as "Pomona" and "San Luis Obispo". --Marco Guzman, Jr Talk 03:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't see it as disambiguation (people confuse Cal Poly with Cal Poly, not "California Polytechnic State University" with "California State Polytechnic University") but rather convention. All the California State University, ____, require disambiguation with a place name, and there's a tendency to refer to all the CSUs (except Maritime Academy) by place, even when the official names are unambiguous (San Diego State University, San Jose State University). I'd oppose parenthetical "(San Luis Obispo)" because that would imply (by Wikipedia conventions) that "California Polytechnic State University" is truly ambiguous, which it's not. "California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo" at least has the advantage of following CSU convention. I do still wonder at the vehemence of some of the editors opposing it, though. Is it merely anti-Pomona, or is there some other issue?--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Curtis--California Polytechnic State University is unambiguous. I'd be happy with a compromise that the article title be turned back to "California Polytechnic State University," but with the first sentence staying as is indicating that "Cal Poly San Luis Obispo" is also a used name. 50.136.142.236 (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
The name change of the article based on a requested change to a category was ill-formed; it should have been discussed on this page. Rather than fanning the flames of edit war, I'd suggest opening a name change request here, to move it back to California Polytechnic State University. It's worth reading Wikipedia:Article titles if you haven't already. I don't see specific naming conventions for colleges and universities. Template:Requested move has the specifics for setting it up. This is how the move should have been suggested in the first place.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I think there is some truth that the requested change to this article's title should have been discussed in this talk page. I still oppose it on several grounds, most explicitly the actual willingness of Cal Poly San Luis Obispo to circumvent this (per it's own Office of Public Affairs's guidelines) which reads:
"university name
Preferred usage in most instances: Cal Poly (add San Luis Obispo if needed for clarification (include commas before “San Luis Obispo” and after if sentence continues. She attended Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, from 1999-‐2003.)
Also can use: California Polytechnic State University (with city, if necessary)
Avoid: Cal Poly State University and CPSU" (page 6)
The Wikipedia approach to naming university articles has changed over the years, so that at one time they were expected to be at the official name of the university (e.g. The Ohio State University), but then the general convention for article titles swung over to the most commonly used name, as long as it wasn't imprecise or inaccurate. Clearly this article could be called Cal Poly without formal ambiguity, but just as clearly, a lot of readers would be confused. I think the candidates for article title are:
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
California Polytechnic State University
Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo (with or without the comma)
I hope all the parties to this disagreement agree that these are the only reasonable titles, and that the remaining issues is which of these best meets the criteria of recognizability, accuracy, and lack of ambiguity.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree that these are three viable options. There's also the option to use a hyphen (en or em dash) instead of a comma. Having said that, my contention is that "California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo" or "California Polytechnic State University—San Luis Obispo" is far more recognizable to editors not entirely familiar with the topic. It's more cohesive and descriptive by indicating a specific geographical locator as do all other 21 campuses of the CSU system (except Cal Maritime, a specialized maritime institution) and all 10 campuses of the University of California system. --Marco Guzman, Jr Talk 17:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
"California Polytechnic State University" is the title that this article has had for as long as I can remember, and is 100% unambiguous. Adding "San Luis Obispo" isn't the name of the school, official or commonly used. Indeed, "Cal Poly" itself shouldn't necessarily have a disambig, but since it does, there is no need to further add "San Luis Obispo" to the California Polytechnic State University page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.12.189 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I think that you will find that once you are outside of your location on the Central Coast, you will find that Cal Poly SLO is common and helpful in differentiating between the two universities. Reviewing some discussion from 2010 at Talk:California State Polytechnic University, Pomona#"Cal Poly" name, including the multiple examples of Cal Poly Pomona being referred to as Cal Poly in the media, may be worthwhile. 72Dino (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
But this isn't a discussion about the name "Cal Poly." The issue is the name "California Polytechnic State University," which is unambiguous by any standard. Given that there is already a disambig for "Cal Poly," (and a hatnote for Cal Poly Pomona, and a section on Cal Poly's relationship with Pomona) there is simply no need to add "San Luis Obispo" to this article. This is simply getting crazy. 67.180.12.189 (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Move. Everyone seems to agree that the proposed title as written is unambiguous. The main argument against the move seems to be possible confusion with California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, which as stated is already handled by a hatnote. Jafeluv (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Neutral as nominator. No one else seems willing to apply the template. I'd be happier if the name were the result of a clear consensus achieved here.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Support. Reverting to California Polytechnic State University is correct, unambiguous, and reflects the long standing name of this article. 66.184.148.237 (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
'Support. The title is already unambiguous without adding SLO. 166.147.121.148 (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - Due to the long history of the two campuses as one university, and repeated use of "San Luis Obispo" in third-party publications (specially its parent CSU system). Inconsistent naming convention with all other comprehensive CSU campuses (except the outlying maritime academy) which use geographic locator. (e.g. San Diego State or California State University, Chico). Corporate naming convention that's one sided and sponsored by the office of public affairs at Cal Poly SLO, but who actually recognized the need to circumvent this (per it's own guidelines) which reads:
"university name
Preferred usage in most instances: Cal Poly (add San Luis Obispo if needed for clarification (include commas before “San Luis Obispo” and after if sentence continues. She attended Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, from 1999-‐2003.)
Also can use: California Polytechnic State University (with city, if necessary)
Avoid: Cal Poly State University and CPSU" (page 6)
I disagree with MarsRover's assertion that there would be any confusion. First off, there is no such school as "California State Polytechnic University." Rather, Cal Poly Pomona is known as "California State Polytechnic University, Pomona." Pomona is literally part of CPP's name. Second, the name "Cal Poly" already has a disambig page. Third, this article also has a hatnote talking about Cal Poly Pomona. Fourth, this article has a whole section on Cal Poly's relationship with CPP. This Pomona business is getting a bit excessive--this article is not an article about CPP. At the end of the day, "California Polytechnic State University" is correct, unambiguous, and the long-standing name of this article. There is simply no reason to let the recent, unilateral and unnecessary name change to stand.04:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.142.236 (talk)
It's amusing to look at the first few pages of the 90,800 Google hits for '"California State Polytechnic University" -pomona'. Evidently there are those who think it's in San Luis. There are 68,300 hits for '"California Polytechnic State University" pomona -obispo'. I'm starting to rethink my neutrality, since it seems that plenty of people unassociated with either school simply can't get it right.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Support. The name of this article should have never been changed in the first place. SLO isn't part of the school's name, and not having it remains completely unambiguous. As to any potential concerns regarding Pomona, this article already has a link on the very top to CPP as well as a disambiguation page for "Cal Poly". There is no need for more. 67.180.12.189 (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Additional Citations Still Needed?
A large number of footnotes have been added and broken links fixed in October 2012. Is it still necessary to state "This article needs additional citations for verification. (December 2011)" under "This article has multiple issues"? 98.234.109.54 (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think so--Calpolylolli (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Cal Poly SLO Mustangs
There are wiki pages for several Mustang individual sports programs - baseball, basketball, football, soccer, but I cannot find any wiki page for the Mustangs sports program overall. If this page exists, it should be clearly linked to this page in the Athletics section. If it does not exist, perhaps someone knowledgeable about Mustangs sports could create this page. Barryjjoyce (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Opening Sentence
Although I support having a naming section, I respectfully see no reason to include a "see naming" flag in the first sentence. It makes for an odd opening, and serves no purpose; there is a table of contents, and people are free to navigate to the naming section. 67.174.238.254 (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Semiprotection may be considered
It seems that there is some repeated editing of the lead by IPs. I've looked at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000 but can't easily find the bottom line of that report. In my research I happened to notice this change to the lead, undoing a change by an IP. Are there any regular editors who would support long term semiprotection of this article due to IPs warring about the name of the school? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
YEndorsing semi-protection per recent edit-warring-like reverts to lead by IPs. --Marco Guzman, Jr Talk 18:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Approve. There is no "agenda" behind this. The official name as stated by both the CSU and Cal Poly SLO is to be presented as "California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo" thus this should be in the title or the first line at least. Cal Poly is simply a "common name" and should be secondary. Special:Contributions/Uwatch310 09:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind that I've removed the comments entirely. Blocked editors shouldn't be editing at all. Those who are interested in reading his or her edits are welcome to do so in this history of this Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Without lending my support to or approval of Marco's edits, I support semi-protecting this article and possible even this Talk page as well as the other pages targeted by this de facto banned editor. ElKevbo (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
After seeing the comments here, I've gone ahead with one year of semiprotection. Let me know if any other articles are affected. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Fall Freshman Statistics 2013 (Preliminary)
Another editor (Uwatch310) and I have a difference of opinion about entering the number of enrolled freshmen in the '2013 preliminary' column of Fall Freshman Statistics. Uwatch310 asserts it should be left blank "until the census is run for a official numbers" since "this number fluctuates" (the quotes are from Uwatch310's 10/4 and 10/5 reversions of my submissions). I have two counter-arguments: (1) While I agree the number fluctuates, the fluctuation is absolutely insignificant. Cal Poly's Institutional Research reported 4,882 enrolled freshmen on 8/2; 4,880 on 9/23; and 4,875 on 10/2 (these are all from http://www.ipa.calpoly.edu/content/publications_reports/reg_mon/index). (2) The 2013 column is labeled 'preliminary', thus it's reasonable to assume that readers will know this number and all others, including GPA and ACT & SAT scores, are subject to change.
So, the question is whether a reader is better informed by a blank entry for the number of 'preliminary' freshmen until the "census is run," or sees a number provided by Cal Poly from 4 days ago that is highly unlikely to significantly change. I invite other editors to weigh-in, and ask Uwatch310 to respond.Contributor321 (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
First, thank you for creating this in the talk page! Good thing to address! The only reason I suggested we wait on including the "enrolled" section (and really we should wait on including GPA, SAT, and ACT scores too) is because those data are all unofficial until the census is run on the 5th week of the semester (or quarter in this case) for any university. The university reports artificial numbers in August, which always tend to be higher than what actually is the case. If we want to include these data, then that is fine - but just know that the GPA, SAT, ACT, and enrolled freshman profile are all not actually true at this point in time (regardless of the source provided - for the reason I just stated above). 10 to 100 students might drop next week, which will cause the GPA, SAT, and enrolled profile to alter. Thanks.
There is no rush to provide information on an encyclopedia, so in my opinion preliminary information should not be included but rather we should wait for official final numbers. Bahooka (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Bachelor's Projects
Fluid, a product sort of like PowerBar, is a company that was founded as a senior project here too. From their website: "Fluid is an all natural healthy replenishment product for Fast • Complete • Muscle Recovery. Awarded "Best Nutrition Product of the Year" at TriFest '08, Fluid was originally created as part of a university senior project at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo and is exploding world wide." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddyfinnso (talk • contribs) 00:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Help Regarding Community Figure if Possible
Hello!
My name is Uriel and I am trying to write a wikipedia page regarding Don Morris and his enormous influence within the university of California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly) and the surrounding community here in San Luis Obispo. I was wondering if you could show me how I could maybe combat some of the points regarding his deletion. I have list of accomplishments and other events he participated in during his time in San Luis Obispo and groups he created that has the potential to show that he is a notable member in the community.
Thank you so much for your time and have a great day!
I have just modified one external link on California Polytechnic State University. 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:
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.
I have just modified 9 external links on California Polytechnic State University. 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:
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.
References for Incidents and controversies section
I reverted an edit which removed most of the Incidents and controversies section. The section needs additional references to improve its verifiability. The wording could also be improved. Semancion (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Remove Incidents and Controversies Section
I did checking around on other UC and CSU articles and I found ZERO mention of recent "bad press" incidents. These trivialities (someone once wrote some racist graffiti? big whoop) do not belong on the wiki page for the University. Even the big ones like the Poly Royal Riot or Mardi Gras Riot are obscure and irrelevant compared to the other information here. Maybe these seem like a big deal to current students, but I can assure you that no one not currently enrolled has any knowledge of nor interest in these things. I'm not going to take the section out myself because I don't feel like I have enough history of curating this page, but I entreat that someone who does or feels so bold to strike the entire section for irrelevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.225.114 (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
No other UC or CSU seems to have a systemic problem with racism as CP-SLO. We may have to write a whole article titled Bias incidents at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo and that may restore the balance in this article. --Chlorineer (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Despite what sounds like obvious bias in your comment, I can't deny that recent history does show more racial incidents at Cal Poly than any other UC or CSU. However, let's not pretend that there aren't numerous campuses across the country that are also dealing with similar issues and yet very very few of their articles seem to include incident reports like this. Now I'm not against having major incidents and controversies on the page but most of those listed could hardly be considered more than minor. Not to mention the clear bias towards incidents regarding race and diversity. The Section title is "Incidents and Controversies" not "Racial Incidents and Controversies". If we're going to list such minor events then we should also be listing any sexual assaults, acts of violence, preachers in the UU, etc. Clearly that would be overboard, so all I ask is that we keep the section reasonable in scope like we're supposed to. If you really want all these other incidents listed then just make a new article as you said. Previousrevision (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I think a balance needs to be made. I think the "09:08, 16 May 2018 Dexbot" version is the most balanced version, although I think looking at the fact that even the UC Berkeley page doesn't even mention the recent riots shows that these Cal Poly controversies are not that important to have on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C52:7C00:7F01:F0CD:B47B:6BD9:136C (talk)
To compare against other similar/nearby universities on wikipedia, UC Davis only has mention of the pepper-spray event, which is notable enough to have its own rather large wikipedia page, UCSB has only a single line referencing the 2014 Isla Vista killings and no mention of the other issues UCSB has had, and UC Berkeley has only a small sub-section dedicated to the significant history of major controversies around the campus. I'm in favor of removing it as a whole. Whitegrimreaper (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
The material that is currently being added and removed and readded is probably way too long and detailed for an article that is about the entire history, organization, resources, and contributions of this institution. At the same time, I don't think it's completely appropriate to compare this article to other college and university articles as I think that nearly all of them are overly positive and omit any negative information (probably because many editors who edit these comparatively obscure articles are associated with the institution - alumni, employees, etc. - and have a vested interest in keep the articles positive). But if some of this information is kept it must be in proportion to the relative importance of the incident(s) as weighed against the impact of the incident in the context of the organization's entire history. It would also be really helpful if the material was placed into context instead of just repeated summaries of one-off incidents. ElKevbo (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
This is ridiculous that the page is locked. Just leave ONE OR TWO MAJOR WELL DOCUMENTED CONTROVERSIES, NOT EVERYTHING EVER. THE WIKI IS FOR THE UNIVERSITY NOT ITS CONTROVERSIES. I do not think Cal Poly is racist! It is consistently awarded diversity awards by hispanic and other racial minority societies for empowering their citizens and for social mobility, that is one of cal poly's strengths. Sure, there may be one or two people that are racist, but that is at every university. JUST SYNTHESIZE THE CONTROVERSIES INTO ONE OR TWO MAJOR WELL DOCUMENTED CONTROVERSIES AND UNLOCK THE PAGE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:141B:C0BE:B0EE:176D:208F:5DB9 (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC) . 2002
ONE CONTROVERSY I FOUND WAS THAT THIS WAS PLAGIARIZED BY THE CAL POLY POMONA WIKI FROM THE SECOND SENTENCE OF THE INTRO. "Founded in 1901, it is one of the few public Institutes of Technology in the United States.[1]" The sentence was replaced by this in the intro, "It is one of two polytechnics in the California State University system." The sentence on Cal Poly Pomona then copied this statement on their page, "The university is one among a small group of polytechnic universities in the United States which tend to be primarily devoted to the instruction of technical arts and applied sciences." It should be replaced as the second sentence when the page is unlocked.
The fact of the matter is that these incidents and controversies are not out of the scope of the article, and therefore are relevant to it. We cannot in good conscience remove relevant portions of the article simply because other pages do not contain that information. If anything this is indicatory of what could be added to those pages, as well. Semancion (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Even if we were to agree that there should be and incidents and controversies section in this article, what you're suggesting should be placed in the section is wildly out of it's scope. Major incidents would make sense, but the vast majority of the 17+ list of incidents I've seen could hardly even be considered minor. They simply do not pass the "10 year rule" and are clearly a product of Recentism (See WP:RECENT). On top of that the list is ridiculously biased towards incidents of racism which is at odds with the Neutral tone guideline of Wikipedia. It would need to also represent an accurate proportion of incidents related to other topics like sexual assault, religion, etc. If you were to do that though the section would be far larger than any other section in the article, upsetting the balance of the article and CHANGING it's scope, therefore making the section OUT OF THE SCOPE of the original article. If you want a full list of "Incidents and controversies" it does not belong in this article and needs to be a new article. Otherwise leave it as it currently is with the major incidents only. Previousrevision (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
The real fact of the matter is that including a significant section of a comparatively short wikipedia article dedicated to a series of recent events of dubious long-term importance, many of which are not related directly to the university as an organization, is not appropriate as mentioned by Previousrevision. If anything, I think the Poly Riots and Kristin Smart sections could be moved to the History heading and the rest should be removed. Whitegrimreaper (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't disagree that recent events suggest that racism is a problem AT Cal Poly, but I don't believe that the institution that is Cal Poly is racist. In fact most of your sources would suggest the opposite as Cal Poly has and is still taking numerous steps to address and reduce the racist incidents occurring on and around campus. You are more than welcome to create a new article that is titled "Racism at Cal Poly", but including these events here simply falls beyond the scope of this article. And even if you argue it doesn't, adding the sheer volume of events that were listed and not restricting it to major events severely upsets the balance of the article. See WP:PROPORTION, under Balancing Aspects. Also I think you would benefit from reading WP:RECENT as well. Previousrevision (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
First, stop making new section headers in the talk section, it just makes things more confusing. Moving on though, a decade is like the definition of WP:RECENT. If you go out and ask a random sample of Cal Poly students, most of them wouldn't know about these events, so they can hardly be considered as major. Even so, I'll concede the point for arguments sake as you have yet to address my other point: Including the list as you have written it (or are arguing for it to be written) is outside the scope of the article as a WHOLE. no one is arguing that racism isn't a current and past issue at Cal Poly that needs to be addressed. We're arguing that the topic has no place in this article, at least not in the way it is being presented with this "Incidents and Controversies" list. The list, with the events you are arguing to include, would be completely biased and break Wikipedia's neutrality guideline. As an example, it would heavily favor incidents of racism over incidents of sexual assault, which is arguably just as prevalent and important, and in addition to that it fails to reflect the responses that Cal Poly has also undergone to combat the issue like the very ones listed at the end of of the source you just provided. If you want to include these events, then YOU need to ensure that the presentation of them comes across as neutral and relevant to the article as a WHOLE without changing it's focus or scope. Either do better or MAKE A NEW PAGE for this topic. Previousrevision (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I disagree, the topic of the culture of racism at the university is encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion in the project. However, I do concede that the current way it's structured in this article is hideous. I call for the creation of the article Bias incidents at California Polytechnic State University and just have a blurb in this article to link there.--Chlorineer (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I encourage editors who believe this information should remain in Wikipedia, in this article or others, to please specifically cite sources that have written about this topic. I'm not talking about the specific incidents but about the larger conclusions that some editors are drawing or believe should be drawn e.g., the university has systematic problems with racism. Citing sources, especially high quality sources (e.g., peer-reviewed), is the only way we can distinguish between encyclopedic material and original research. ElKevbo (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate the controversy section on this page. I do not believe that the absence of this kind of section on other college articles means that it isn't worth having on this article. I think that a peer reviewed meta-analysis of Wikipedia college campus articles would have to be cited to make that argument worth considering anyway. The alternative seems to be reviewing the talk section to see if including it has been discussed on other pages as well as looking into whether or not that section has been removed. 2600:1700:7A51:10B0:5C52:43CB:BAB9:7042 (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
This article links the Charles Voorhis mentioned here to a Charles Voorhis of New Jersey who killed himself in 1896. It's not the same guy and the link should be removed. I used the link b/c I thought the guy in this article might be the same Voorhies who has a building named after him at UC Davis. It probably is but you wouldn't find out from the incorrect link here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.89.122 (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Relations with local community / Zillow quote
I noticed that the section on "Relations with local community" uses Zillow as a reference. I'm wondering, is Zillow considered a reliable reference? I know Zillow has grossly underestimated the value of a number of houses in the area, but that counts as Original Research. 108.252.124.176 (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Requested move 18 June 2021
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
California Polytechnic State University → California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo – This article was moved from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo to California Polytechnic State University in August 2012. While technically unambiguous, this could easily be confused with the California State Polytechnic University in Pomona; both are commonly referred to as Cal Poly. The California State University website gives the name of the college as California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. Searching "Cal Poly" on Google gives results related to both CPSLO and CPP. In addition, all California State Universities with the exception of the Maritime Academy are commonly referred to by their city names. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 19:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC) —Relisting.User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Support per nom. The titles are too easily confused without the extra disambiguation. Rublov (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Support per Cal State's own webpage on university names. They also use, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo because it's confusing to have it without the location identifier. --Chlorineer (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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
Done I have removed SDSU claim for flagship status per Wikipedia:BOOSTER. Thanks for pointing it out 71.202.205.242!--Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 04:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Relevant discussion at
Endorsing semi-protection per recent edit-warring-like reverts to lead by IPs. -- Marco Guzman, Jr Talk 18:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
