Template talk:Infobox university rankings

Years?

How is this infobox to be used if it doesn't include the years of the rankings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RockyJennifer (talk • contribs) 15:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

ClosedThis issue has been fixed with a new version of this template.Brilliantwiki2 (talk) 07:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Refs don't make sense

I'm removing the references from this infobox. They don't make sense. When the infobox is added to a new page, the access dates and date of latest rankings don't match up. The refs should be added to the values sent to the template. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

ClosedThis issue has been fixed with a new version of this template.Brilliantwiki2 (talk) 07:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Bolding in non-lead infoboxes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting § Bolding in non-lead infoboxes. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2024

Add QS Europe ranking option, this is a notorious ranking, you can find it in https://www.topuniversities.com/europe-university-rankings TrueThingsTeller (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the reason it wasn't added was because QS Europe was only launched in 2023. Don't see any reason to object, but the editnotice says that affirmative consensus is needed for additions, so I'll wait for more input. I've also posted a notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education to gain more attention. Liu1126 (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there evidence that this ranking system is reputable and being taken seriously by scholars and experts? ElKevbo (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It's part of the QS family of rankings, so it's likely that it will be taken seriously (or, as seriously as rankings are generally taken) but whether this has actually happened yet as it only launched last year is dubious. Some of these rankings appear, don't get traction, and are quietly dropped, so it might be best to wait for a year or two to see if it actually sticks around and to allow people to reference it. Robminchin (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree: QS is a widely-considered compilation of rankings (Alexa) (Mastersportal) supported by various accredited universities (Penn State) (NC State) and should be regarded by the template as such.

— Urro^{[talk][edits]}

19:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's look at each of those links:

• (Alexa): This page appears to focus primarily on convincing people to subscribe to it so they can perform search engine optimization. It doesn't appear to be related in any way to relevant expertise and knowledge.
• Mastersportal: This doesn't even appear to be a reliable source.
• Penn State: A page that exists only for the institution to brag about this ranking doesn't provide much evidence that scholars or experts believe the ranking to be reputable. In my experience, these webpages are written by people in marketing or communications, not higher education scholars or ranking experts. In any case, this definitely is not anywhere close to an unbiased "opinion."
• NC State: Same as above.

So I don't find any of those sources convincing. I recommend looking in the higher education scholarship or at least the higher education press for material that may be useful and convincing. ElKevbo (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I think we're drifting off topic here. Most of the QS family is already included in this template; this is just about whether this particular ranking of the family should be added, not about whether the whole QS family is notable or not (unless you're arguing that we should remove all the QS rankings from the template, in which case we should start a separate discussion for it). I believe Robminchin's argument is more relevant here, letting this sit for a while and see if the ranking stays. Liu1126 (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

My point is that the QS family is very popular online, alongside what Liu1126 has said. I'm unsure as to what sources are expected to see if a compilation of rankings is "taken seriously." I think it being used popularly by students to help decide their future is a good exemplification of this. I'll try my best to look for what could be a more standard, Wikipedian, source.

But it is true that universities love to brag.

It may be worth checking out some of the resources that the QS World University Rankings page mentions. (The Guardian) (The Independent)
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} 16:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Since the discussions seems to have died out (no new comments for 10 days), I'm closing this request for lack of consensus. If the ranking seems to stick around, or there's any other signs of notability, a new request can be opened. Liu1126 (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

Add The Three University Missions Ranking (MosIUR) university ranking, it has been around since 2017,and it's the only other international ranking besides Times Higher Education that has passed PwC audits.

The Three University Missions Ranking Anto5840 (talk) 08:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Adding request

I'd like to add Round University Ranking Subject Ranking, including Medical Science, Computer Science. Each has global ranking and national one. Decasurger (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

THE Politics & International Studies

Is there any thought or objection to adding the discipline-specific THE Politics & International Studies rankings [1] since we already have the QS Politics parameter? Chetsford (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Cite error for Rankings_ARWU

I noticed the follow cite error on Harvard University:

Cite error: The named reference Rankings_ARWU was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Is this related to the template? Queen Douglas DC-3 (talk) 09:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

This seems to have been fixed; there was an errant parameter provided in the infobox on the article. Primefac (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)