Talk:California State Polytechnic University, Pomona/Archive 2

Navigation Box
The Navigation Box that was recently created has links to (mostly nonexistant) pages for each category. I do not think it appropriate or necessary for any institution to have a page devoted to each of its sub-colleges? I mean, what is the significance of California State Polytechnic University, Pomona College of Agriculture? -- Inanup 23:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I noticed those pages also. I was hoping User:Lufthmark would add to them but s/he hasn't as of yet.  I am not sure if there is even anything notable enough to justify their existence.  I'll drop a message on Lufthmark's talk page asking what s/he has in mind for the pages. --00:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry...I will add on to them shortly. I have been typing a description of each of the colleges and each of the buildings listed on the template that I created, but unfortunately I haven’t uploaded the descriptions yet.  I will do so as soon as possible.--Lufthmark 02:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I find them very un-notable, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to do an AFD. Do other universities have similar articles about their colleges?--Curtis Clark 04:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I want to add that such articles seem to me to be difficult to maintain. Cal Poly Pomona is going through a prioritization and recovery process now that may result in the elimination or combination of majors and even colleges. Who will check the University Catalog every quarter to make sure that the information on the pages is accurate? My feeling is that the amount of stable, non-POV information on each college is small enough to keep in the main article. This doesn't preclude the creation of separate articles, based on notability alone, but it does mean that we don't need to reproduce the org chart in Wikipedia.--Curtis Clark 14:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, other universities do have articles about their colleges and schools, for example the University of California, Berkeley has them. I do understand your concern Dr. Clark, but in case the above mentioned happens we will make the needed changes to the templates and to the college's description(s)--Lufthmark 06:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool. As long as someone is on top of it, I'm happy.


 * I would suggest toning down the superlatives in the first paragraph of College of Engineering, though; your reference appears to be the College of Engineering web site, which can't be expected to be NPOV.--Curtis Clark 16:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I speedy deleted all of the individual college articles with the exception of the College of Engineering as that actually had some content. I'll let someone else decide what they want to do with the template, since it now mostly consists of red links. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed from the nav panel some of the red links have a slim to nil change of being stand alone articles. I do think each of the college articles should be kept provided they have material since they are at least as notable as High School articles. Also, one would think with 16,955 undergraduates there that someone will keep them update to date. --MarsRover 03:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * They definitely can be recreated, they just need more content than they had before (i.e. more than a list of 4 items). Good work with the College of Business article. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Programs and Degrees
Is it really necessary to list every single degree the university offers? I'm inclined to remove the list or at the very least condense it to just the more general subjects (i.e. science, engineering, etc.) but would like to hear opinins from others first. -- WHS Talk 04:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned above, adding detailed current information can be hard to maintain: majors come, majors go. Also, the list in the article isn't even complete, which makes it POV unless independent criteria for inclusion are added. Because it is POV, I support removing it, and, lacking opinions to the contrary (and assuming someone else hasn't done it), I'll probably take it down in a day or so.--Curtis Clark 13:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't necessarily think its inclusion constitutes POV (or at least an attempt at negatively instituting POV in the article) since the majors listed appear to be spread fairly evenly in all subject matters, but I agree with your reasoning for its removal.


 * Incidentally, and I realize they're both two separate entities and two separate articles, but I think this should apply to the Cal Poly in SLO as well. -- WHS Talk 10:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * C'mon, Curtis Clark. You are the LAST person who should ever accuse someone else of putting forth a POV in an article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.66.185 (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Cal Poly Pomona logo
Is that logo correct? Where on the cal poly pomona website did it come from? --MarsRover 05:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The logotype at the bottom of the infobox? No, it's not official in any sense.--Curtis Clark 13:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The "Cal Poly" bitmap User:Lufthmark supplied might have came from CalPoly SLO and should be replaced. Being the same logo is on both articles, it just adds to the confusion. I will leave a message in his talk page. --MarsRover 15:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please correct the infobox at the bottom to include Pomona, or "CPP" as it confuses viewers with Cal Poly (in SLO). Also note, all references in this article must contain Cal Poly Pomona, without forgetting pomona. (Justsomeboi 14:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Ah, so it was you who was trying to make changes in the archive of example templates in my userspace. =)  The actual template is in template space at Template:California State Polytechnic University, Pomona.  I chose to use just the short form "CAL POLY" in the left-hand visual marker because it distorted the size and shape of the navbox less than "CAL POLY POMONA" would have and because the title bar of the template has the complete name of the university.  See Template Talk:California State University for the design considerations I was going by when designing the CSU series of navboxes.


 * There is currently a replacement for Cal Poly Pomona's specific template, done a style similar to the templates I made for the UCs, in the works. It doesn't seem to be done yet, but you can see the progress on it here: User:Cal Poly Pomona Engineer/Sandbox.  The editor taking the lead on the redesign for Cal Poly Pomona is Cal Poly Pomona Engineer.   --Dynaflow   babble  20:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

New Library photo
I hope this photo is meant as a joke since that is one ugly proposed building. It look like someone added a room on to their house in a different style than the original. The other thing is the copyright for the photo says User:Lufthmark personally created the photo. --MarsRover 15:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's real (sigh). I think Lufthmark photographed the hard copy in a display, and doesn't really understand copyright. As soon as I find the source, I'm going to have it removed.--Curtis Clark 18:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Historical discrepancies
One small observation- the dates in the campus history don't exactly jive with the dates on Cal Poly's website. Any comment on this?

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 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:CALSTATEPOLYTECHNICROSEFLOATLOGO.PNG
Image:CALSTATEPOLYTECHNICROSEFLOATLOGO.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 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 04:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CALPOLYSEAL.PNG
Image:CALPOLYSEAL.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 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 04:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the whole paragraph on selectiveness should just go away
Recent POV edits by a Cal Poly SLO student point up that Admissions has always selectively presented the facts. Comparing a single-year admission percentage with the long-term percentages of other universities is comparing apples and orchards. It's easy to pick a year that supports your pet theory, be it that you attend a selective school, or that those CPP students are losers compared to SLO. Add to this the fact that enrollment targets have been heavily affected by the state budget, which has had its ups and downs, and that specific programs may have higher competition (and in some cases higher requirements) than others, and the paragraph becomes less and less encyclopedic. I reverted it, but I've decided to delete it instead. I'm open to its being restored in a less biased format. It would be nice to do an analysis of acceptance rates, but that would unfortunately be original research.--Curtis Clark 13:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It would probably just be better to rewrite the section from scratch. Maybe following the lead of the University of Michigan's article is a better approach...? --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Selectivity posted once again
This is ridiculous. The USA Today article suggestion Cal Poly Pomona has an acceptance rate of 23.9% is incorrect. The more valid fact would be that out of the total applicants, 23.9% accepted admissions; a much higher percentage of applicants were accepted. You do not see Cal Poly (San Luis Obispo) article citing their acceptance rate as 15% as this is just not the case. That line is incorrect, nonfactual, and cannot be cited. I'm taking that part off.

Justsomeboi (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cal Poly Pomona CLA.png
Image:Cal Poly Pomona CLA.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 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 11:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Relationship with Cal Poly
Shouldn't this article have something about CPP's relationship with Cal Poly? I'm pretty sure that they used to be the same school.


 * There already is a paragraph in the Cal Poly article about the relationship. Duplicating it here seems redundant. But the CPP article's history section is suspiciously missing the key information that it once was a "satellite campus" of Cal Poly which would basically point you at the information. --MarsRover 07:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand that the Cal Poly article already explains it, but that is no reason to make the CPP article incomplete. I think it's kind of a big part of the university history.  Any objections to me adding it?


 * Go ahead. --MarsRover 02:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The seal is incorrect
The university publishes its official seal at http://www.csupomona.edu/~publicaffairs/graphics/nomenclature.shtml. As you can see, this seal differs from what we have here on the Wikipedia page. I would like to update it, if nobody has any objections. Sawagner201 (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)sawagner201


 * I'm assuming you mean the typeface. It's an older variant (see here for example, which I digitized from an older printed source). I don't have any issue with using the current graphic. The university logo could also be used.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the logo too. I'm a bit new to the Wikipedia thing--am I free to insert the current logo in place of the seal?Sawagner201 (talk) 07:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether the seal or the logo seems to me to be a judgment call—they are both official. The important thing in any case is to provide the Fair Use rationale when you upload it, similar to what was done with the current seal (although it mis-attributes its source).--Curtis Clark (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Rose Parade Float
The Rose Parade floats worked on by both Cal Polys is mentioned three times in the article. It only needs to be mentioned once. Any thoughts on which one (maybe the one with the images)? Alanraywiki (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It's mentioned twice under the article's "History" and once on "Notable Involevements" sections. If you want to do something about it go for it!

--Dabackgammonator (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Alanraywiki (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Fortnight (COTF)
I nominated this page so it can help from the Collaboration of the Fortnight WikiProject if you agree or disagree with this nomination you can express so under the nominations section of the project's page by going here. Thank You.--Dabackgammonator (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversies
A statement was added about a donor receiving an honorary doctorate. The granting of the degree has now been sourced. What has not been sourced, however, is why this is considered controversial without bringing in original research or synthesis. There should be a citation showing that someone states this is a controversy. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it's a controversy considering that the university has given honorary doctorates to other donors, and this is not an uncommon practice among universities.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because this does not actually appear to be a sourced controversy and actually is common, I will remove the edit. Without a citation about a controversy, if nothing else this could be a violation of WP:BLP. Alanraywiki (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Erroneously
I have reverted this change yet again, for two reasons:


 * 1) The cited reference does not state that it is erroneous.


 * 1) Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. The article makes it clear that "Cal Poly" is not correct, according to the official stance of Cal Poly Pomona. What the locals choose to call it is (a) a referenced fact, and (b) their own concern.

A better approach to both of these issues would be to modify "(but never by the university)" to something like "(although the university deems this incorrect)".--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The word "erroneously" is POV because we are stating rather than showing why this is incorrect. The editor's edit summary stating "Cal Poly Pomona is not Cal Poly" may be a hint to what his/her real intentions are.--Dabackgammonator (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Latin name
The only west-coast, public college I can think of off the top of my head that actively uses a Latin name is the Universitas Oregonensis, and even then, that's only on their seal. Just arbitrarily making up a Latin name for a school would be original research (even if it does make the article look classier). --Dynaflow  babble  23:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Cal Poly Pomona is not Cal Poly
The intro paragraph references what some locals call CPP. I believe that it is misleading to state that some locals refer to CPP as "Cal Poly" without explicitly stating that is erroneous. See http://www.csupomona.edu/~publicaffairs/graphics/nomenclature.shtml. The problem is that without such a wording, the statement implies that "Cal Poly" refers to CPP, which it demonstrably does not. Frankly, I think it makes CPP look bad. I would be fine if we removed the "locals" comment entirely, but as long as it stays, it is erroneous. This is a NPOV fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.196.168 (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If locals from Pomona call the place "Cal Poly," then that's what they call it, and in a local context, it is not an error. As a parallel example, if a Santa Cruz resident says they're "going up to UC" and then goes up the hill to UCSC, they did not make an"erroneous" reference to Cal; they made a perfectly understandable and correct statement in the local context.   --Dynaflow   babble  00:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. My main issue is that "Cal Poly" is an actual name for a different university in California (Cal Poly).  It is misleading to include a local practice--done by some--without mentioning the fact that it is incorrect.  What if people locally started referring to CPP as Caltech?  Again, without language specifying that is erroneous, it would be misleading.  Your UC example, by the way, is not analogous --UC has not been an official name of UC Berkeley in decades.  This is unlike Cal Poly, which still regards "Cal Poly" as an official name.  Look at the above reference.  CPP has officially rejected the use of "Cal Poly" without "Pomona."  Thus, including this language is demonstrably erroneous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.196.168 (talk • contribs)


 * there should not be any confusion between the schools; Pomona is California state polytechnic university(cspu)and san luis Obispo is California polytechnic state university(cpsu) so technically cal poly Pomona can be called cal state poly75.24.247.21 (talk) 01:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * California Polytechnic State University is the actual name of the other school in question. "Cal Poly" is an elision which can be used to refer to either of the two, similarly-named institutions.  In the local contexts, in either place, appending the city name to the end of "Cal Poly" would be redundant if referring to the nearby campus.  Farther away (I live in the Bay Area, for example) one appends the city name in either case, to avoid confusion.  Unless I'm actually near San Luis Obispo, I refer to the "true" Cal Poly as "Cal Poly SLO" as a matter of course.  Maybe the verbiage of the sentence can be changed to emphasize that the usage in question is only correct in a local context.   --Dynaflow   babble  00:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the current intro, although it seems a bit verbose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.196.168 (talk • contribs)


 * That sentence is just killing the lead-in. It just sounds awkward.--Dabackgammonator (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi there Dabackgammonator. Can we speak directly about this?  I think we need to come to a consensus about the intro to the SLO and Pomona articles, because they are verbose as hell.  Is it ok if I post my e-mail, or does that violate Wiki?  I'm kind of new to it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.196.168 (talk) 07:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I grew up in Pomona and attended CPP in the 1970s, and my recollection is that we always just referred to it as "Cal Poly". As Dynaflow said, since we were in Pomona, referring to it as Cal Poly Pomona would have been redundant.  The official moniker I recall was Cal Poly Kellogg-Voorhis (or Cal Poly K-V, to distinguish it from Cal Poly SLO.)  Can someone enlighten me as to why SLO is considered the "real" Cal Poly? - Mark Dixon (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's my understanding: Since CPP in its present form started out as a branch campus of CPSLO, before breaking away to become a separate campus within the overarching CSU, CPSLO seems to reserve some kind of seniority-based right to the use of the unadorned moniker "Cal Poly."  --Dynaflow   babble  07:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Some background
First, a disclaimer: this is based mainly on memory, and although I could probably reference it, for now it is OR.

When I first encountered the university in the late 1970s, the freeway sign said "Cal Poly Kellogg-Voorhis", but I believe it was inaccurate even then, since the university was no longer using the Voorhis campus. But it is my understanding that prior to the separation from the San Luis campus, it was called "Cal Poly, Kellogg-Voorhis Unit". The current Cal Poly Pomona Foundation used to be called "Cal Poly Kellogg Unit Foundation", which everyone confused with the Kellogg Foundation in Battle Creek.

The oldest inventory numbers on equipment started with "K-V", for "Kellogg-Voorhis", and then later became "CPK" for "Cal Poly Kellogg Unit". Old-timers (me included) still refer to them as "CPK numbers".

Because of the confusion with the San Luis university, our then-President, Bob Suzuki, decided in the late 1990s to emphasize "Cal Poly Pomona". The general attitude has been that we're not a branch campus, and we need to stress our independent identity. As a retirement gift, a graduating class gave Dr. Suzuki an additional "P" after the concrete "CP" on the hill (generally called "CP Hill") above campus. Some people humorously referred to it as "pee on the hill", but it was long enough ago that most students don't know that there used to be but one "P".--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * isn't it ironic that the Pomona campus wants to have its own image but when it comes to publicity the name cal poly is recognized because of the rose float. Pomona wants a self image but as long as the rose float says cal poly universities. pomona will seem as a part of the original cal poly.75.24.247.21 (talk) 01:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's a reference to what you are saying from the PolyCentric.--Dabackgammonator (talk) 03:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The name
I am going to create a new section to deal with the name issue in what I hope will be seen by all as NPOV. Please don't revert me until I'm done (I'll return here and let you know).--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. Edit away, but please don't put it back in the lede. Someone might also want to do a similar treatment at California Polytechnic State University.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was going to make that whole thing into a footnote, but I wandered away and neglected to do anything further with it.  Technical discussions about minutiae really do kill leads, don't they?  =)   --Dynaflow   babble  21:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Will someone do the same to the SLO article? I already did, and it has been reverted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.196.168 (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Admissions
The admissions section lists an admit rate of 24 percent based upon a story in USA today. As the article states, however, the admissions rate is actually 69% according to the university admissions office. The USA Today story used the number of students accepting enrollment as opposed to the number of students accepted. It is clearly misleading to label this as an "admissions rate," and I believe this makes the university simply look silly. Permission remove it?

Rivalry with the other Polytechnic
I think both this article and the Cal Poly San Luis Obispo 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 their personal battleground. They just reflect how ignorant and closed minded students at both universities are.--76.175.187.51 (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Please refrain from commenting on contributors and point out where and how this article is biased. Amerique dialectics 03:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No evidence of POV dispute
"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." This has not been done. Until it is done, there is no basis for a POV tag.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

CAL POLY SAN DIMAS ?
SOMEONE NEEDS TO EXPLAIN WHY THE COLLEGE MOVED FROM SAN DIMAS(1938- 1956) TO PRESENT DAY POMONA. IT HAD TO DUE WITH THE POPULATION OF THE SCHOOL. THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY HAS A COLLECTION EXPLAINING THIS. I JUST CAN NOT MAKE IT SOUND RIGHT. IF NOT I WOULD REWRITE THE ORIGINS OF THE SCHOOL. ALSO I WOULD ADD THE SCHOOL CLOSURE DURING WW2 AND THE REASON BEHIND THE CLOSURE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.126.83 (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think It's made clear that the school changed locations. It also doesn't mention the history and the current use of the original campus. I've never visited the Voorhis Campus, but from pictures, I think it's a historically significant site (relative to the Inland Empire). Seaprt (talk) 07:11, 03 October 2009 (UTC)
 * i have been where the original campus was at. all the building are still the same from the on the outside(also looking at picture references)(not sure about the inside). however getting their is horrible. the road is really narrow, it is currently occupied by some Korean help service(was originally sold to a christian college that used it up to about 6 years ago. before it was sold again) the location in case you want to know is a small narrow street on the corner of valley center and gainsborough ave(its the road that heads towards walnut creek park) in san dimas.Javiern (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * here is some info about the old campus and links [] [] Javiern (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * this links gives a more detailed location and history[cal poly history[[User:Javiern|Javiern]] (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * oh the campus was sold to Cal Baptist and i guess they sold it too. the info is towards the end of the link provided above.Javiern (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * i guess they sold it to the tzu chi foundation. the address now belongs to them75.26.157.204 (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

WP CSU
--Dabackgammonator (talk) 05:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The most popular undergraduate majors
this section which is in academics needs to get revised. about 25% of the school(about 5000 students) are enrolled in engineering and another 25% is in business administration. the most popular majors would be in these fields not in the liberal arts majors Javiern (talk) 09:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed split
I think I'll be able to expand the section enough to allow a split. What do you think?--Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the history and campus sections could be split. Amerique dialectics 22:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with splitting the history section. The campus section, on the other hand, may or may not require a split. We'll have to see how it unfolds. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The origin of the university is a major aspect of the school that should not be split from the article.  The naming is particularly important to prevent confusion of Cal Poly Pomona with Cal Poly. 71.202.205.242 (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)sawagner201
 * yes it should be split because the article is getting to big. takes a while with dial upJaviern (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

poly dump
why is there no mention of the dump that the school bought in the late 89? its 300 acres and it is next to the village apartments75.27.238.71 (talk) 07:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Iirc, it was donated to the university at the end of its useful life. A couple of references: (look under LandLab), .--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * but here, you said that the school bought it[] so did the school buy it or was it donated.75.26.157.204 (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * would this link be useful too?[] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.157.204 (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Twas a joke. Actually, the Sanitation District paid Cal Poly lots of money for research. The second site ceased to exist earlier today (we've deprecated the old Intranet, and only active sites were moved to the new system). There used to be a web site for LandLab, but it went away a while ago. I think the controversy over the proposed golf course soured the entire enterprise.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The golf course debacle should be added to the controversy section. I remember the proposal by Bob Suzuki, but I've heard it was also proposed by Ortiz. Is this true? debaser 03:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaprt (talk • contribs)
 * To the best of my knowledge, he has never made that proposal. Certainly in the current economic climate, it would be nonviable by any measure. (Oh, and I can't add it, because I was a party to it.)--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Voorhis Ecological Reserve
Can anyone write a about it under the Campus section as this is the largest educational facility at the university. I don't know enough to write about it.67.170.84.112 (talk) 08:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion. I'll get on it by this weekend. You can try and help out as you see convenient (a.k.a. "be bold").--Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a reference: http://www.csupomona.edu/~biology/docs/voorhis.html --Curtis Clark (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Was the reserve named after Jerry or Charles Voorhis. If it's Jerry, as the official VER website states, did Cal Poly Pomona have a relation with Charles as stated on the CPP Wikipedia page? Either way, there is no link to either's wiki page and there isn't a link from Jerry Voorhis' page to Cal Poly Pomona.  I would make the changes, but I am not sure they would be correct.Seaprt (talk) 08:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Jerry was at the groundbreaking. There's a web page The Voorhis Connection that details some of this.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Cal Poly Pomona History
I object to the manner in which the history of CPP is being portrayed. Specifically, the article makes reference to Cal Poly later becoming a 2-year tech school. That's fine, but also incomplete and misleading. If the article must reference the status of Cal Poly, it would be just as accurate to state that it later became a four-year univ (like Pomona). I'm trying to assume good faith here.

I'd be fine with simply stating nothing about the status of Cal Poly: that is, Cal Poly Pomona begam as a "southern expansion of Cal Poly." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.205.242 (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To add just one more thought: we could use the exact same line from the Cal Poly page for consistency: "Cal Poly Pomona began as a satellite campus of Cal Poly in 1938 when a completely equipped school and farm were donated by Charles Voorhis and his son Jerry Voorhis of Pasadena, California. The satellite campus was initially called the Voorhis Unit." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.205.242 (talk) 06:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I like that wording and would support.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What about "Cal Poly Pomona began as a satellite campus of the California Polytechnic School[1] in 1938 when a completely equipped school and farm were donated by Charles Voorhis and his son Jerry Voorhis[2] of Pasadena, California. The satellite campus was initially called the Cal Poly Voorhis Unit.[3]" Referring to SLO as Cal Poly in Cal Poly Pomona's article is a little stupid since some refer to Cal Poly Pomona as Cal Poly and there's room for confusion.--Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * References
 * 1, 2, 3


 * What's the point of arguing?. User talk:71.202.205.242 does as he/she pleases before reaching a consensus or mere understanding?--Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding me? You are merely attempting to obfuscate reality here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.205.242 (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Dr. Clark, I agree with your edit. I think we can leave it as is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.205.242 (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Pretty self explanatory
The end result of Cal Poly San Luis Obispo's arrogant corporate-naming policies: --Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Evidence of Marco Guzman's bad faith editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.205.242 (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My guess is that it's a result of having richer alumni. Just sayin'.... --Curtis Clark (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Founding of CPP
I'm not sure what the issue is here. The wording keeps bouncing around. Is it over the distinction between "extension" and "expansion"? Is it over whether Cal Poly is "original"? Please clarify.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * i thought it was an expansion.funny to see all the infighting75.16.36.69 (talk) 07:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

intro
if you read the intro, it does not sound right. it reads as if a person just put whatever was in their mind. it needs to read smoothly. 75.28.108.106 (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

campus bus
why is there no mention about the bus transit lines that shuttle students around campus as well to the metrolink stations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.14.200 (talk) 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is only missing because nobody has thought to add it yet. You can be bold and create a section for transportation under "Student life." -Mabeenot (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * done :D feel free to expand on it or add the logos for both systems.Javiern (talk) 02:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)