Template talk:Education in India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India / Education (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by the Education in India workgroup.
 
WikiProject Education (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

There is no meaning to add a group of Premier Insititutes: Indian Institutes of Technology · Indian Institutes of Management · National Institutes of Technology ' in the tamplate . there are many more good institute as Bites pilani etc...--Sumitsinha lko (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Overhaul[edit]

This template is badly in need for an overhaul. For starters, the educational institutions in states links are now lists of higher educational institutions and the only list of schools is List of schools in India. Plus, this template should probably be the meta-template (the catch-all template) for WP:INEI. So it should list some/all of the following articles too:

among others. Granted this is a long list (which may get longer), but I don't see why we can't have a catch-all along the lines of Template:India topics. PS: If we don't want to make this a catch-all, we could still make a Template:Higher education in India which is badly needed now.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I made some changes on the lines you suggested. I also moved the template to use hlist and made some other additions.--Muhandes (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Nice! How about renaming the "Higher education institutions by states" to "Higher education institutions by states and union territories" and moving Delhi and Chandigarh to it? Or maybe move them without renaming?--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Created User:Siddhartha Ghai/Template:Higher education in India as a first draft. It has significant overlap with this template though.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I already added Delhi and Chandigarh, I did not change the title.
I like the higher education template, but as you said, it has significant overlap. How would you propose to use both? In which article do we add which template?--Muhandes (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
About Delhi and Chandigarh, they're repeated in the state and cities section. Do we need to do that? Seems redundant to me.
As for the template, what I earlier had in mind was to have a single catch-all template for education in India. But, seeing the vastness of the topic, I think a catch-all would be rather hard-to-handle. I think two templates should be there, one for higher education and one for school education (created a draft for the latter at User:Siddhartha Ghai/Template:School education in India).
That leaves the matter of this template unresolved. We could do either of the following:
  • Trim this down to the basics
  • Reorganise it to make this and those two templates different in appearance and hence purpose
  • Dump those two drafts and add all that to this template, making this somewhat like Template:India topics and retain those templates just like parts of that template are templates by themselves too
In my view, option 1 is absurd since we just expanded this; option 2, if achievable, will be the best of the three; option 3 would make this template a little hard-to-handle. Any ideas on how to achieve option 2?
PS: Both the drafts I created are just drafts right now. All users are free to reorganise, add or subtract to them as they see fit--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Re: Delhi and Chandigarh you have a point. I tend to consider the union territories on the same level as states, so I'd leave them there and remove from the cities, but I don't feel strongly about this, so whatever you do is fine by me.
How about we make this template include the other two? a very crude example of how it can look. This way, we save ourselves the double maintenance, and we can use each template where appropriate, with the "Education in India" template used only on articles which are generic by nature (e.g. the ministry, literacy, etc.). --Muhandes (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Removed Delhi and Chandigarh from the cities list since they're in the states list.
Yes, transcluding the two templates would lessen the double maintainance which would otherwise be required. If we can come up with methods to make this look better, its the best way to go. I've made some changes, but I think we can improve it further before moving put of userspace.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm rather happy with how they look after your last improvement. As it seems we are the only editors who care, once you are happy with it we can move forward to deploy, just let me know. --Muhandes (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm mostly happy with them now, except for four major things.
  • Firstly, certain topics are common between the two. For example: MHRD (which regulates both school and higher education), the entire group of "Education in states" (all articles should ideally cover both topics) etc. Currently, the individual navboxes cover articles that relate solely to school/higher education. The common topics are kept in the main navbox and shown only when the main one is used. Is this fine or should we go from individual, individual, all to individual + common, individual + common, all?
  • Secondly, I think we should move the most important aspects of education in India to above or below in all the navboxes, and hide the duplications when the individual ones are transcluded in the main (thus giving all a uniform above/below bar). I believe these cornerstones to be "MHRD", "Literacy in India", "Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan" and the "UGC". Ofcourse this assessment is subjective, but it's probably better to have a partially subjective above/below bar than have none at all. Plus, someone just might get annoyed enough at the subjectivity to join this discussion :)
  • Thirdly, it seems we forgot to add the list of educational institutions by city to the planned template. How about making the "Education in states" and "education in cities" into two separate templates just like the current ones? This will give us four subtemplates which we'll just transclude into the main one. And related to the second point, add a below bar to all of them linking to Education in India which shows up only on using the standalone templates (and not on using the main one)?
  • Fourthly, currently the groupnames "Institutions", "Schools in India", "Boards of education" and "Universities" are wikilinked to the respective lists and the lists are not mentioned elsewhere in the templates. Is this visible enough that people will notice this is actually a link and not just color? Or should we change this to "Schools in India (list)" etc.?--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
PS: Add below links to the main template to Category:Education in India and WP:INEI (which will look like as on Template:India topics)?--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
To answer your concerns:
  • I think the current size and setup is as close to optimal as we can have. It is tempting to add any related subject to the navbox, but adding too many less relevant links makes the navbox cumbersome, and ultimately less useful. "Education in states" is interesting only in the general case and should be kept there. MHRD is a duplicate when sub-navboxen are transcluded, and the duplication can be removed using the parameter you already introduced.
  • I don't see the point. "Literacy in India" is of very little interest to higher education, and so is Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. UGC is of zero interest to school education. MHRD should be the first subject in all infoboxs, duplication handled as mentioned above.
  • I'm not sure I see the point in separate "Education in states" and "Education in cities" templates. I visioned Education in India transcluded with all these articles. Are you seeing a case where you'll want to transcluded only "Education in states" or "Education in cities"?
  • I'm using Wikipedia for too long, so for me it is natural to look for a link with the subject name, but you may have a point. Thinking of less experienced readers, you are probably right. You may want to use smaller font to save space.
Bottom line, lets remember the KISS principle and not over-complicate things. --Muhandes (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Good point. Added MHRD and hid using the parameter.
  • Well, this assessment is subjective. Although I consider UGC to be the cornerstone of higher education in India, Literacy in India to be a cornerstone parameter for the subject, and Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan to be a cornerstone for school education; someone else may say its AICTE, the IITs and KVs insteaad of these three; so its better to just leave these it seems.
  • "Education in states" may not be needed (depending on how big the main template becomes over time), but the list of educational institutions by city are bound to increase over time. Keeping them in a separate template from the start might help reduce load for later (does this sounds like a crystalball?) since the number of lists may go up enough to require a separate template anyway.
  • Made the change.
I found a languishing Portal:Indian Education and added it to the main template for now. Feel free to remove it if you think we shouldn't be linking to an under-construction portal. I also added a state parameter to the subs for changing the default collapsibility when transcluding.
Now, we have three options:
Personally, three seems the best, followed by two and lastly one. (Yes, I seem to have an affinity for adding the city-wise lists, considering that they're present in the current template too).--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd go for the simplest choice, whichever you think it is, but this is your baby, they are all pretty much the same, go ahead with whatever you think is right. --Muhandes (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, preformed the changes per option 3. Will be fixing the template use accordingly.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)