This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
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 articles
For clarity's sake, I have deleted older discussion, but it it will endure in the history section forever! Faith departed! ~ Some points. First, let's keep things recent and relevant. Please use the latest three years of research/data. Second, please try to find/add data about the latest rank, the change from last year and the three-year moving average. In this way, the data becomes real, usable information that well serves Wikipedia's general readership. Third, this rankings section has two parts: Global & Specialized. The Global half is in both senses of the word; namely, it is a worldwide and comprehensive comparison. With all the schools compared over several (3+) criteria, it becomes a true apples-vs-apples comparison. On the other hand, the specialized section offers important information about regional rankings, including "non-US". Sometimes, all one needs to know is who the biggest fish is in the local pond! What's more, narrower issues/specialities, such as being the best in Quantitative Finance or Organisational Behaviour can be shown here. These rankings, too, are apples-vs-apples ones, but the trouble with mixing the two sections is creating an apples-vs-oranges situation. In other words, the rankings themselves cannot be readily compared. Fourth, please do not conduct original research. If you cite some global study, believe it or not, writing that a school is "Nth in Canada" is original research. If a study was not about any particular country, then being "Top" is the academics of maple-syrup production will be overlooked entirely. Believe that! Only when a study is about Canada does the depth of Tuque Economics come into focus. Naturally, the Schulich site notes that it is "Nth in Canada". Editors, please! Go to the original source. I can't be arsed to go do this work, but I will if previous editors ignore the rationale behind the status quo without refuting it. Geez! We are editors and not fanboys/fangirls and we all must resist the temptation to "big up" a school's standing for advertising sakes, especially since many parties can directly benefit from an upward (or downward) distortion of rankings. The way it is set up now is super-clear. Please add more lines to this fair, clear and logical system. COYW (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The links are still in need of updating! Some kind editor, please update them. A good place to start for pointers is the Schulich page. I hope to get around to it in May or by the end June (at the latest). Please update the links and erase/archive this blurb. Thank you! COYW (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
