Talk:Cal Poly Mustangs baseball

	Baseball portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject College baseball (assessed as Low-importance).

California: State University Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by California State University task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Cal Poly San Luis Obispo Mustangs baseball → Cal Poly Mustangs baseball – Per name used by reliable third-party outlets ESPN (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/team/_/id/13/cal-poly-mustangs) and Yahoo (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/teams/cag). Precedent with University of North Carolina system: UNC's athletic team page is simply the North Carolina Tar Heels, not the North Carolina-Chapel Hill Tar Heels, as the flagship university is consistently referred to as such in reliable national sources. Kithira (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with ≤*'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support per Kithira above. Most independent organizations refer to the sports teams as Cal Poly, rather than the full name of the university. This, by itself, makes it clear that the common name of the program is Cal Poly. Billcasey905 (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The standard naming convention on Wikipedia for this school is simply "Cal Poly" and a disambig is not needed. Please note that User:Marco Guzman, Jr keeps unilaterally moving SLO sports articles without discussion. He is an alumnus of the school and often edits Cal Poly articles with bias (I have seen discussions on his talk page in the past regarding this behavior). If the consensus is to move this page back per Kithira, it might be reasonable to request a page move protection. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That's my main reason for bringing this up for formal discussion, and if my nom is put through, I plan on proposing the same move for Cal Poly San Luis Obispo Mustangs men's soccer. Kithira (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all the reasons plainly stated above. Mizzou415 (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all reasons above plus bringing in line with established convention here on Wikipedia seen at Category:Cal Poly Mustangs. This is a slam dunk. I went ahead moved the men's soccer team to Cal Poly Mustangs men's soccer. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of the similarity of names between Cal Poly and Cal Poly Pomona, using the location identifier (which is often used outside of California's Central Coast) helps avoid confusion between the two universities. 72Dino (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support 72Dino makes a valid point, but I don't think it's a big enough deal to not do this merger. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Tiggerjay (talk) 07:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.