Talk:California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

	Portal This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Please do not post copyrighted images 2 Architecture rename 3 Article title 4 AFD: Not a license for spam 5 Straw vote to remove list of individual student organizations 6 Rating 7 Requested move 7.1 Voting 7.2 Discussion 8 Noted Faculty members 9 Criteria for noted students 10 Navigation Box 11 Programs and Degrees 12 Cal Poly Pomona logo 13 New Library photo 14 Historical discrepancies 15 Fair use rationale for Image:CSU.PNG 16 Fair use rationale for Image:CALSTATEPOLYTECHNICROSEFLOATLOGO.PNG 17 Fair use rationale for Image:CALPOLYSEAL.PNG 18 Perhaps the whole paragraph on selectiveness should just go away 19 Fair use rationale for Image:Cal Poly Pomona CLA.png 20 Relationship with Cal Poly

[edit] Please do not post copyrighted images

Two users (or the same user with two usernames) have posted photgraphs from http://e-advancement.csupomona.edu/film/gallery.html on this and other pages, and claimed "no rights reserved". The claim is false; these images are the property of Cal Poly Pomona and are not licensed for use in Wikipedia (and no one ever bothered to ask for permission, either).

This is Not a Good Thing for two reasons:

1. It's against the law, and may at some time subject both Wikipedia and the registered users to liability.
2. It is not NPOV. The photos were taken by the campus photographer, and selected to show the university in a good light (literally and figuratively). We can write our own public relations pieces; Wikipedia should show all aspects of the campus, good, bad, and ugly.

So please stop.--Curtis Clark 17:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Architecture rename

ar·chi·tec·ture (ärk-tkchr) n.

1. The art and science of designing and erecting buildings.
2. Buildings and other large structures: the low, brick-and-adobe architecture of the Southwest.
3. A style and method of design and construction: Byzantine architecture.
4. Orderly arrangement of parts; structure: the architecture of the federal bureaucracy; the architecture of a novel.
5. Computer Science. The overall design or structure of a computer system, including the hardware and the software required to run it, especially the internal structure of the microprocessor.

Okay, while it doesn't fit the first definition you are thinking of, it definitely fits the second one. There really wasn't a reason to rename it, as doing so closes any possible discussion of some of the campus' unique architecture that the campus DOES have, eliminating any possibility of discussing the first definition. I am not strongly opposing the edit, but find it somewhat frivilous and that it should be noted that didn't serve to improve the article in my opinion. -- Akosygin 22:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion Akosygin regarding my "frivolous" edit. In my defense I would point out that no CA State University has a section on "notable campus architecture". Most do not discuss campus buildings at all. The few that do, mention one or two buildings. Furthermore, our notable architecture section did not discuss architecture. It was and is a directory of campus buildings. In my opinion it should be condensed, but at the very least, it does not warrant an unnecessarily pompous title at this time.

Despite your assertion, changing the section title in no way prevents discussion of campus architecture. By all means, develop the section further, although I would ask that you focus on buildings that are truly remarkable from the architectural perspective, such as those that have won awards or been designed by world class architects. Please also provide references.

I do find your concern for the section title rather curious though, given the strident opposition to presenting any semblance of a discussion of student life at Cal Poly. Compared to numerous other Uni articles, this is highly unusual and poorly serves our readers. In fact, I would argue that our approach completely ignores the interests of our readers. Maybe this slant is due to the campus employees that have sought to maintain the page. Whatever the explanation, somehow I think that those contributing here have forgotten, or are desperately trying to forget, that students sometimes inhabit the campus's "unique" architecture. -- JJay 01:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I do not oppose individuals putting up information about student organizations, I just disagree with the POV some people put in the descriptions. And as a good guideline, if you think of an important event on campus, then relate the organization with the event, you would give it a more neutral perspective to it without the slant. But that is straying the subject here and should be discussed in the section below.

Back to the original topic, I apologize if my wording caused offense, I did not mean to do so. However, I know that we have an architectual design department that has done some work on campus, but I was hoping that the wording of the original title might encourage contribution from someone whom was more familiar on the topic than I. And hence, that is why I oppose the change, but not to the level of demand or doing a revert. It is fine, but it is just that I would not have made that change, that is all. -- Akosygin 09:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

I would strongly suggest that the name of this article be changed to "California State Polytechnic University, Pomona". I don't think that informal names should be used for the article title. However, when I tried to move the article, it seemed to prevent me from doing so. --Cswrye 02:15, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

"Cal Poly Pomona" is an official name of the University, in the sense that it is the text of the University logotype, it's used all over the official web pages (it was like that even before I was web coordinator), and extensively elsewhere. You probably couldn't move it because there is already a redirect, which IMO is the appropriate way to handle it. --Curtis Clark 03:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also disagree with Curtis and I strong feel that the article name should be changed. If they are both official names, then "California State Polytechnic University, Pomona" should be used. It is Wikipedia policy to not use the abbreviated form for article titles. The opening line of the article even refers to it as "California State Polytechnic University, Pomona". Replacing the redirect on the California State Polytechnic University, Pomona page with this content and putting a redirect on the Cal Poly Pomona page would not be difficult. PS2pcGAMER 04:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to contact Cavebear42? Also, I agree with Curtis Clark on the redirect. I disagree with the addition of notable graduates. I don't think being a published director of a specific university's program is alone qualifying. Maybe a university president, Nobel Prize recipient or director of the National Institutes of Health or something similar that affects numerous individuals. With the criteria currently employed hundreds of alumni could be added, including myself. --134.71.99.87 08:18, Jun 29, 2005 (UTC)

The noted graduate is as noted as the noted faculty. I eliminated the noted faculty some days ago, arguing that anyone who lacked a Wikipedia article was not notable. Someone restored it, so I added a section on notable graduates (after all, we are about our students, not about our faculty), with the one entry for whom I had information at hand. Yes, there are plenty of others, and if we are going to continue this dispute, I would hope that others would add more, but I'd as soon let it all go, especially since places like Berkeley have mostly blue links, not red links, in their notable section. --Curtis Clark 30 June 2005 05:32 (UTC)

[I disagree with your removal of the list of notable faculty, and I have restored it.] --134.71.99.87 07:35, Jul 10, 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for my haste in taking down the original "red-letter" list. It makes a lot more sense to create articles for notable people. I'm glad you took the time to write an article for Uesugi. I took your verbiage for Dr. Landau and created a stub. Feel free to add to it.--Curtis Clark 14:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AFD: Not a license for spam

It is incredibly irresponsible to close an AFD by choosing to merge a spam article with a legitimate one. Recently on this article some alumni tried to promote their company--obviously spam. If they had created an entire spam article, would the AFD recommend merging it?

Why do I say it's spam? It's POV, and there is no other student organization explicitly mentioned. If the proponents of the spamming fraternity (or their misguided allies) insist on continuing to add it back, I will create an article Student Organizations at Cal Poly Pomona and invite all the student organizations to contribute.

Disclaimer: I'm the Web Coordinator at Cal Poly Pomona. My agenda here is to push NPOV, and part of that is preventing spam.--Curtis Clark 20:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You should have participated in the Afd, but you didn't. The AfD closed as merge. I'll be happy to add info on other student organizations. But I would remind you that you do not own this article. -- JJay 22:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Nor, emphatically, do a group of people who participate in an AFD for another article. I fail to see the logic in an action on another article having an irreversible effect on an article the contents of which were not considered in the action, and upon which no notice was placed that material would be irreversibly merged into it. As usual, I'll continue to do what needs to be done, which in this case will eventually result in someone else choosing to split a by-then overly long Cal Poly Pomona.--Curtis Clark 00:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the references about the article for deletion vote from the article. That doesn't belong in encyclopedia (see: WP:ASR).

Neither does the fraternity reference, certainly not standing alone as it does.--Curtis Clark 04:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I also removed the POV. Personally, I'm not sure if I would have merged that into the article, but now that is has been, the POV needed to be removed. -- PS2pcGAMER 02:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The merge makes perfect sense since this is a student group on campus. Frankly, the article needs better content because it looks like advertising for the school. This raises POV problems given that it sounds like it was written by someone in the Cal Poly administration,

A quick look at the history confirms that this is not the case, except inasmuch as the contributors might have copied from the University Catalog. IMO I am the first "Cal Poly administrator" to have contributed to Wikipedia, and all my edits are under my name (my actual name).

is not referenced

Which makes it among a tiny minority of Wikipedia articles...

and misleading. I have already corrected one problem with the school's ranking and intend to continue. -- JJay 03:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your corrections, and I hope you continue. I just wish you hadn't merged the spam.--Curtis Clark 04:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

First, I didn't merge anything.

My misstatement, but you did revert the deletion of the merger twice.

Second, the text concerns a group of students active on campus. There is nothing unusual about mentioning student groups on a university page. Cal Poly is a university, right? -- JJay 04:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Now that the POV is toned down, maybe we can get some other student organizations as well.--Curtis Clark 04:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

There is something engineered here about adding fraternity information as the first and only organization. It's just plain salesmanship, bravado, whatever one wants to call it. Basically, it's meaningless and there is no room for dribble such as this. If every club stuffs their info into this page it will be thousands of words longer and contain some really offensive verbiage about fringe issues. Incidentally, I don't see all the fraternities listed at other universities. I guess I can see a reason if it's the first fraternity in the nation or perhaps a historically significant feeder organization, such as Yale's Skull and Bones, but a generic fraternity is not either of these. I would approve of links but not sections.

Also, I would approve of this better if every fraternity and sorority on campus was added at the same time. Incidentally, the added text non-standardly links off site from Wikipedia. Okay, I think what I'll do is wait and see how this is handled. If I think it's handled inappropriately I'll report your fraternity to the campus Office of Student Life for inappropriate behavior, plus your national chapter headquarters for behavior unbecoming a campus fraternal organization that harms the interests of the institution. Are you sure you want to leave the link up? ... --134.71.99.87 09:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like JJay is going to keep reverting the deletion until the cows come home. Since he thinks so highly of votes, I'm going to start one. If an administrator thinks there's a better way to do this, please let us know:

[edit] Straw vote to remove list of individual student organizations

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sigma_Chi_Cal_Poly_Pomona ended with the recommendation to merge with Cal Poly Pomona. According to posts at Talk: Articles for Deletion, a vote to merge is not binding on the target article, although the opinion should be taken seriously.

This proposal is to remove the merged text and to recommend against having a list of student organizations.

• Remove - If a subset of organizations is listed, it makes the article POV, since they are most likely to be self-selected. If all organizations are included, the article will be too long, and difficult to maintain as student organizations come and go. No other article about a California State University campus has an explicit list. California State University, Los Angeles has a separate article about the Greek system. California State University, Monterey Bay and California State University, Northridge have paragraphs that mention a subset of student organizations, by name and not with description.--Curtis Clark 05:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I'm going to revert removals from anoms with no edit summary. That is obvious. There is also nothing unusual about mentioning student groups on UNIV pages. On a side note, I am bothered by the promotional tone of the article and the lack of references. -- JJay 05:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

1. You've reverted all removals.
2. Please cite references to university sites that have detailed lists of student organizations. I already took the time to look at every California State University in that regard.
3. The "promotional tone" of the article is truly a side note (I would argue that including only a single fraternity increases the promotional tone). There is a simple solution to promotional tone and lack of references, and it's not to force a merger on the article.--Curtis Clark 20:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Remove - Unless a student organization has done something notable, it should not be listed. First consider whether an event or some participation is important or notable to be included, if that is, then you can consider whether the organization has a notable involvement in the notable event. If the event or contribution to the university is notable, then include the event and the contribution first, then make mention of the organization. The events and history of the university should come foremost and the criteria that the organization must be pivotal in this notable history of the university before it can be included. This will keep the university-centric view without biasing it to a particular organization if the organization is only mentioned as part of a university event or history. Please see Rose Float example. -- Akosygin 19:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Addendium Comment - Please note that I am voting to remove not because I do not want this section, but I do not want this section if it is going to not conform to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. If people can keep it NPOV and non promotional in its wordings, I am fine, but so when this vote went up, it was somewhat slanted. Currently, I feel it is in that gray area and is debatable. As I have previously mentioned, if a student organization has done something notable, please add it. Otherwise, please be cautious about the wording if you are to just put the organization in without an event or historical significance reference. -- Akosygin 09:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Remove - A single user is hijacking this Wikipedia page for their own personal promotional interests. I approve remove for the reasons stated above this straw poll and because this forced addition is essentially spam. (I stand by the above statement.) Ingyhere 09:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• That statement is completely false and reflects your ignorance. If you were an actual contributor, and not a sock puppet, I might actually be offended. -- JJay 01:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• "JJay" has made a number of sock-puppet accusations, which is starting to make me wonder whether some of the rest of you are actually "JJay". :-) (I know I'm not "JJay", and "JJay" isn't me.)--Curtis Clark 17:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• JJay, please be civil. Accusing someone of sock-puppetry (especially without any evidence) and not "an actual contributor" is hardly fair. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Please. Accusing me of "hijacking" a page for "my own personal promotional interests" is fairly serious and not particularly civil. I'm still waiting for some proof there. That it comes from a user with 8 edits that managed to find this page and "vote" is highly suspicious. -- JJay 14:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• User JJay is altering pages too quickly after they are changed. Please see time stamps. I believe he is running a notifier or some type of bot. If this is not against Wikipedia's TOS then it should be. I do note that JJay's bile is tempered by his fear of being blocked by Wikipedia's reversion guidelines that prevent reversions more than three times in 24 hours. After much consideration on his contributions and edits I can only conclude that he is touching the page solely for the purpose of leaving a mark, much like a graffiti artist spray paints on the wall. These pointless, irrelevant, thoughtless edits amount to nothing more than vandalism. I recommend that this is taken into consideration in evaluating JJay's future edits -- and reevaluating his past edits. Is there a way he can be blocked from editing this page? He already said he has nothing to do with the university which basically is an admission that he knows nothing about it but still insists in making changes ... Ingyhere 09:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• I have to admit that I'm somewhat surprised by your post. There have been no edits to California State Polytechnic University, Pomona since 6 February. Perhaps he's running a bot, but maybe he just has the page on his watchlist (the built-in "notifier"), as I do.--Curtis Clark 15:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• There is way too much garbage about one troll cluttering this page. He's made his mark, and maybe he is gone now. Since I seldom come here, nor do I 'watch' the page, the changes have more of an impact. I write this to suggest that we remove the voluminous mentions of the guy both by himself and the hordes he offended. And I do think he was using a bot because I don't understand how someone could be on Wikipedia so much of the time that they respond to sporadic changes within seconds. He had no problem changing others posts and his posts were basically pointless, so lets scrub the page of his folly. This is the last I will say about this, perhaps I will do it myself in the future. Ingyhere 02:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm still here. Considering you now have a total of ten edits at wikipedia I guess you are entitled to your opinion. However, a large part of your contributions here are personal attacks against me. I would advise you to find a more constructive way of participating. See WP:CIV and WP:NPA. I should also point out that removing comments from talk pages is not common practice here. They are part of the public record and must remain. -- JJay 03:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

As much as I hate to agree with JJay ☺, he's absolutely right about not removing content from talk pages. If you did it, I'd revert it. (I did redact some of the argument between myself and 134.71.99.87, because we had both fallen into personal attacks, but it's still in the history.)--Curtis Clark 05:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rating

I have updated the US News ranking. The Princeton Review claim needs a reference, since a check of the PR's web page shows that the school is not listed [1].

[edit] Noted Faculty members

I have removed Adair from the list because she is not on the faculty. She is dead and I do not believe we should mislead people into believing they might have the possibility of studying with her. I would also point out that a list of "noted faculty members" is unusual on a Uni page. I realize that Cal Poly does not have many world-class professors, but listing the few that exist smacks of boosterism. It also is extremely divisive. This is another section that needs to be reexamined.-- JJay 14:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Your accusasions of boosterism are either extremely POV or an indication of the fact that you have looked at few other University sites. Richard Feynman, for example, is dead, but he is still listed at List of California Institute of Technology people. Obviously, Adair is no Feynman, but then Feynman is no Adair. Later today I will separate current and former faculty in the list.--Curtis Clark 15:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Rather it is you who has looked at few Uni sites. It is very rare to list faculty members. To list a few as "notable" is embarrassing. It looks, as I stated, like a desperate attempt to boost the notoriety of this school. The changes you have made, with a section for active faculty that includes the soccer coach, and deceased faculty, is farcical. -- JJay 17:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• California State University, Dominguez Hills#Notable Alumni and Faculty
• California State University, Fresno#Notable faculty and staff
• California State University, Long Beach#Notable faculty
• San Diego State University#Notable Alumni and Faculty
• San José State University#Noted faculty members
• University of California-Davis#Notable current and past faculty members
• List of California Institute of Technology people#Notable faculty
• List of Stanford University people#Notable Stanford faculty and affiliates
• Pitzer College#Notable professors past and present
• List of University of Southern California people#Faculty

I'm tired of doing your research for you (it was about 40% of the sites I examined, btw). I'm the one who insisted that the lists of notable faculty and students only include people with Wikipedia articles (see the latter part of "Article Title" above). Note that even some of the "big name" schools have lots of red links. The reason there are only a few listed as notable is that they are the only ones with Wikipedia articles. You could take it all out, for all I care, but one of the proponents of the list will revert the removal as vandalism.

This is an encyclopedia, not a place to push your grievances against a university. "Desperate" and "farcical" is an interesting POV, but until you start coming down on colleges more broadly rather than pursuing whatever is your agenda here, I cannot take you seriously.--Curtis Clark 19:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You can keep attacking me all you want, I would again remind you that you do not own this page and that you might want to consider collaboration as an option rather than the confrontational approach that you have constantly pursued here. I could care less whether you "take me seriously" or not and if you are tired consider doing something else with your time. You have continually fought to block any mention of student groups in this article. Since you like links, you might want to comment on some of the following:

• California_State_University,_Long_Beach#Student_Life
• California_State_University,_Los_Angeles#Student_Life
• California_State_University,_Monterey_Bay#Student_Life
• California_State_University,_Northridge#Groups_and_Organizations
• University_of_California,_Berkeley#Student_groups
• University_of_California,_Davis#Sports.2C_clubs.2C_traditions.2C_and_student_activities
• University_of_California,_Irvine#Student_life
• California_Institute_of_Technology#Student_life
• CSULA Greek System
• Harvard#Student_groups_and_organizations
• Yale_University#Student_organizations
• Dartmouth College student groups
• Brown_University#Student_life

This may be difficult for you to comprehend but I have no grievance against this school. Unlike you, I have no connection with this school or any University. My agenda, is to contribute to a page found by accident that badly needed improvement and that you seem to want to control as your private domain. Given some of the corrections I've made to the text, I hardly think you are well placed to talk about "POV" -- JJay 21:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The entry below was removed by "JJay" from its original position as an interlinear response to him, and placed into a single paragraph. I believe that one needs compelling reasons to alter a post of another person to a talk page, and his changes make my post difficult to comprehend, but I will assume good faith and let it stand. For those interested in seeing it in its original position, please see the page history.--Curtis Clark 20:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"Desperate" and "farcical" isn't an attack?

I never said I did; that was originally your statement. An impartial observer would perhaps find little difference between our edits to the page.

I have, but not with you, since you have shown little evidence of willingness to do so.

I don't regard forcing a merge onto a page until a vote opposes it to be non-confrontational. Had you been willing to discuss it originally, or even (gasp) propose it on this page before you did it, things might have turned out differently.

That is a lie. As I said, I'm not going to do your homework for you. If you want to add enough student groups to compare to your examples below, be my guest; I won't revert it. I even gave a URL in a previous revision so you can look them up and read their own web sites.

I've already seen most of them; they were my basis for saying originally that including only a single fraternity was not pattern and practice for Wikipedia.

You're right about that!

I have stated my affiliation and my agenda, and I don't hide behind sock puppets (as you implied on your talk page) or pseudonyms. I'll pay more attention to Wikipedia:Assume good faith if you will.

I agree, and most of your edits have been useful. Adding the single fraternity and deleting a poor dead faculty member, on the other hand, have been "badly".

That's ridiculous. I've strongly opposed two of your edits. I was willing to compromise on student organizations until I saw that others saw the fraternity as out of place as I did. I thought I had satisfied your point about the poor dead faculty member (and also the retired one, who no longer teaches), and indeed some other universities make the same distinction. If you can't tolerate opposition, perhaps you don't belong at Wikipedia.

Given those corrections, no. But that's not all you've done.--Curtis Clark 23:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I have already corrected you on this point, but given your continued confusion I will again set the record straight: I have never merged anything with this page. Therefore, I could not "propose" it "before I did it". It is another example of where the personal attacks directed at me have no grounding in reality. Furthermore, since you now claim that your opposition to this fraternity was because it was "not pattern and practice" to only include one group, I will be happy to add a few more- at least until we have as many student groups on the page as current faculty members (one not counting the soccer coach). -- JJay 14:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You forced the merge. Here are the relevant history entries, with your reversion of removal of the merge bolded:

• 09:37, 30 January 2006 72.129.123.215 (Removing self-aggrandizing content and tidying up Student Life to remove spurious insertion of spam)
• 09:34, 30 January 2006 JJay (→Student life - add poly post)
• 09:26, 30 January 2006 JJay (rv vandalism)
• 09:25, 30 January 2006 72.129.123.215 (Tidying up Student Life to remove spurious insertion of spam)
• 09:24, 30 January 2006 JJay (rv removal by anon)
• 09:22, 30 January 2006 72.129.123.215 (Spurious insertion of spam)
• 09:20, 30 January 2006 JJay (rv removal)
• 09:19, 30 January 2006 72.129.123.215
• 10:48, 27 January 2006 JJay m (rv vandalism)
• 10:35, 27 January 2006 72.129.123.215 (Corrected resubmission by JJay)
• 17:27, 19 January 2006 JJay (rv unexplained removal)
• 15:36, 19 January 2006 24.127.118.98 (→Student life)
• 21:35, 16 January 2006 JJay (rv unexplained removal)
• 17:26, 16 January 2006 24.130.174.86 (→Student life)
• 14:25, 14 January 2006 JJay (rv myself)
• 14:23, 14 January 2006 JJay (→Student life - add KCPR)
• 18:49, 13 January 2006 JJay m (rv removal)
• 15:49, 13 January 2006 134.71.241.95 (→Student life)
• 21:44, 1 January 2006 Curtis Clark (→Student life - remove additional POV)
• 21:38, 1 January 2006 Curtis Clark (→Student life - begin list)
• 19:25, 1 January 2006 JJay (→Student life - add wikis rephrase 1 line)
• 19:15, 1 January 2006 PS2pcGAMER (→Student life - removed self-referencing of wikipedia, wikified date (for use with date preferences), removed POV)
• 17:57, 1 January 2006 Curtis Clark (→Student life)
• 15:06, 1 January 2006 JJay m (rv per AfD)
• 13:56, 1 January 2006 Curtis Clark (→Student life - See Discussion)
• 11:41, 1 January 2006 JJay m (RV- Afd outcome was merge)
• 11:33, 1 January 2006 Curtis Clark (rv spam)
• 11:29, 1 January 2006 Angr (→Student life - merging from Sigma Chi Cal Poly Pomona per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigma Chi Cal Poly Pomona)

Five users (myself and four IPs) tried to remove the inserted passage, and you reverted every one but the last (after the vote). Your insulting claim that we are all sockpuppets doesn't lessen the fact that, although you did not do the original merge, you attempted to force its acceptance on the rest of the contributors to this page.

I look forward to your addition of student groups (please add two or three with the first edit, so that no one will mistake your intent). I still fail to understand your beef with listing faculty who already have Wikipedia articles, even if they are dead or coaches (coaches are faculty in the CSU according to the Higher Education Employee Relations Act). Plenty of bigger-name universities have many on their equivalent lists with no Wikipedia articles.--Curtis Clark 20:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• That really advances the discussion here. It would be nice if you devoted some of this energy to improving the article rather than making accusations. I will also continue to revert removals from anoms that have not participated in editing the article and that do not explain their edits. That holds for every part of this article, notable faculty, buildings, etc. The fact that you find it normal for anom IPs to remove blocks of text from the article without explanation is troubling. -- JJay 21:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Although I am a proponent of registering, I know that anonymous editors have their reasons, and I think it's rude to assume all anons are vandals (even though I tend to make that incorrect assumption myself). I think if someone has taken the time to understand the history of an edit, a deletion by an anon should be evaluated on the same basis as a deletion by a registered user. Unfortunatlely, it's not possible to tell whether either one has taken the time to evaluate the arguments.--Curtis Clark 22:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria for noted students

(1) Does someone want to remove Forest Whitaker since his article mentions CSUF and USC but nothing about Cal Poly? Otherwise this needs a cite. (2) Also, should we list people like Richard Pombo who is neither a student nor an alumni but a college dropout? -- Ingyhere 09:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I originally added Pombo because his article showed up on a search for Cal Poly Pomona in Wikipedia. I don't think the practice is necessarily bad; see Notable non-graduate alumni of Harvard.--Curtis Clark 15:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. --WHSTalk 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. --WHSTalk 10:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:CSU.PNG

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

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

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

[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other 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)

[edit] 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)