Talk:Hampton University: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:51, 8 June 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hampton University article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Virginia High‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

National Register of Historic Places High‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Higher education

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

African diaspora Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora 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.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Hampton University be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Virginia may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Fair use rationale for Image:HamptonU.jpg

Image:HamptonU.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in 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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

The photo has some illustrations but additional photos and/or photo uploads are needed to improve the article.

HABS or HAER photos may be available for this site. Search HABS/HAER here
Seemingly all of the 17 photos accompanying NRHP document (linked in article) are taken by NPS employee and Federal NPS owned, hence public domain and can be used. Search NPS focus here, please select the highest resolution JPG versions
New photos would be helpful.

School shooting

I added a section about the recent 2009 shooting according to the suggested standard of larger school shootings to be featured in standalone articles and smaller school shootings to be featured under their respective school's page. As with the University of Pécs shooting for example. SerialKillerWiki (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hampton University/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs inline citations T REX_speak 18:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 18:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 17:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Alumni Factor ranking

I recently removed a reference to Alumni Factor with a request with a note asking that editors "please discuss in Talk why this should be included in this (or any other) article e.g., no concrete description of methodology, no evidence of noteworthiness)." Instead of discussing anything in Talk or presenting any evidence, Broadmoor reverted my edit with an edit summary of "Read the website and it's growing in popularity as one of the premier ranking publications." First, I have read the website and it has no specific details about its methodology. Second, we have no evidence whatsoever that the website is either "growing in popularity" or a "premier ranking publication." ElKevbo (talk) 10:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're being petty and combative as usual. Instead of removing the cited fact because you didn't like it like you did, you should've started a talk page for discussion before it was removed. And you should've started the talk page because only you have a problem with it, I don't feel like a talk page on the matter is needed so I didn't start one. AND YOU CLEARLY DID NOT DO YOUR RESEARCH BECAUSE IF YOU DID YOU'LL KNOW THAT THEY RANK UNIVERSITIES BASED ON ALUMNI SATISFICATION AND SUCCESS. Many universities have cited The Alumni Factor on their official website and many reputable publications has praised the new ranking system they invented so it's a legitimate ranking system. A simple google search validates everything I stated. See this is why I can't take you seriously, you don't do due diligence and you're not fair.Broadmoor (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 12:50, 8 June 2016 edit Broadmoor (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 29,653 edits →Alumni Factor ranking ← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:51, 8 June 2016 edit undo Broadmoor (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 29,653 edits →Alumni Factor ranking Next edit →
Line 37:		Line 37:

	I recently removed a reference to [https://www.alumnifactor.com/top-177-colleges Alumni Factor] with a request with a note asking that editors "please discuss in Talk why this should be included in this (or any other) article e.g., no concrete description of methodology, no evidence of noteworthiness)." Instead of discussing anything in Talk or presenting any evidence, [[User:Broadmoor\|Broadmoor]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hampton_University&oldid=prev&diff=724258193 reverted] my edit with an edit summary of "Read the website and it's growing in popularity as one of the premier ranking publications." First, I have read the website and it has no specific details about its methodology. Second, we have no evidence whatsoever that the website is either "growing in popularity" or a "premier ranking publication." [[User:ElKevbo\|ElKevbo]] ([[User talk:ElKevbo\|talk]]) 10:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)		I recently removed a reference to [https://www.alumnifactor.com/top-177-colleges Alumni Factor] with a request with a note asking that editors "please discuss in Talk why this should be included in this (or any other) article e.g., no concrete description of methodology, no evidence of noteworthiness)." Instead of discussing anything in Talk or presenting any evidence, [[User:Broadmoor\|Broadmoor]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hampton_University&oldid=prev&diff=724258193 reverted] my edit with an edit summary of "Read the website and it's growing in popularity as one of the premier ranking publications." First, I have read the website and it has no specific details about its methodology. Second, we have no evidence whatsoever that the website is either "growing in popularity" or a "premier ranking publication." [[User:ElKevbo\|ElKevbo]] ([[User talk:ElKevbo\|talk]]) 10:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
	::You're being petty and combative as usual. Instead of removing the cited fact because you didn't like it like you did, you should've started a talk page for discussion before it was removed. And you should've started the talk page because only you have a problem with it, I don't feel like a talk page on the matter is needed so I didn't start one. AND YOU CLEARLY DID NOT DO YOUR RESEARCH BECAUSE IF YOU DID YOU'LL KNOW THAT THEY RANK UNIVERSITIES BASED ON ALUMNI SATISFICATION AND SUCCESS. Many universities have cited The Alumni Factor on their official website and many reputable publications has praised the new ranking system they invented so it's a legitimate ranking system. A simple google search validates everything I stated. See this is why I can't take you seriously.[[User:Broadmoor\|Broadmoor]] ([[User talk:Broadmoor\|talk]]) 12:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)		::You're being petty and combative as usual. Instead of removing the cited fact because you didn't like it like you did, you should've started a talk page for discussion before it was removed. And you should've started the talk page because only you have a problem with it, I don't feel like a talk page on the matter is needed so I didn't start one. AND YOU CLEARLY DID NOT DO YOUR RESEARCH BECAUSE IF YOU DID YOU'LL KNOW THAT THEY RANK UNIVERSITIES BASED ON ALUMNI SATISFICATION AND SUCCESS. Many universities have cited The Alumni Factor on their official website and many reputable publications has praised the new ranking system they invented so it's a legitimate ranking system. A simple google search validates everything I stated. See this is why I can't take you seriously, you don't do due diligence and you're not fair.[[User:Broadmoor\|Broadmoor]] ([[User talk:Broadmoor\|talk]]) 12:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)