Talk:Coker University

Okay, I made some initial edits. I could use some help. Wuapinmon (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Areas That Need Work

I think that the Athletics, Alumni, and especially the Round Table classrooms need the most TLC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuapinmon (talk • contribs) 18:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, whoever rewrote this made it sound like a brochure. Wuapinmon (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate geographic statement

This article states that Coker College/University is located between Columbia and Charleston. In fact, Hartsville is north of both Columbia and Charleston and is therefore not between them. 2600:1700:3BC0:3EA0:5B6:CE50:B26A:C5FE (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Good catch. I've removed the sentence, it was unsourced. Glman99 (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

"The Dining Hall, with services provided by Sodexo..."

@GIman: If there were something unusual about the Dining Hall or some significance to its catering services, it might be considered appropriate, but as it stands, this information looks a lot like something out of a student handbook. I looked at the "exemplary" higher ed articles mentioned on the Project Page and found none that mentions run of the mill dining halls. I also was unable to find anything about dining or catering here. What reasons might you give for including this information? -- Melchior2006 (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I removed this sentence, but restored info about residence halls. I am not opposed to removing unneeded information, but section blanking isn't the answer. glman (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting the dining hall stuff. As for "section blanking": I think blanking is a bad idea because usually there is something worth keeping. In this case, however, pls follow the link to the reference; it is a dead end. And I suspect very strongly that it never referenced most of the content in the section, anyway. The "residence halls includ[ing] Memorial (1914), Belk (1916), Coker (1916), Grannis (1969), and JLC (2009)" all remain unreferenced, and should therefore be deleted. And at that point, there is nothing left in the section. That's why I deleted it. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Instead of deleting, I'd mark these as dead links or unreferenced, so a user can add references back in, rather than losing the content entirely. glman (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree, in principle, but in this case the reference (even when it was live) was deceptive: it did not cover "Memorial (1914), Belk (1916), Coker (1916), Grannis (1969), and JLC (2009)." The problem is not the dead link, the problem is that most of this info never was sourced. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Then I'd add a cn tag, and circle back and remove in a few months if it's not fixed, unless it's clear that the information cannot be sourced. glman (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for the advice. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)