User talk:138.251.244.161: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:36, 24 January 2009

Question

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia. What exactly were you attempting by this? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, listing 20 years of rankings is ridiculous; especially rankings by discontinued lists.

Your edit broke the table's formatting, and left several fields of data behind; that's why I reverted it. How far back would you go? Two years only? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I apologise, I think reverting to 2 and then opening it for discussion seems apt and fair. The originator of the original change is on an LSE ip highlighting the bias behind the change.

That's not an LSE IP.

But your's appears to be associated with: St. Andrew's

inetnum:         138.251.0.0 - 138.251.255.255
netname:         ST-AND
descr:           The University of St. Andrews
descr:           University of St Andrews
descr:           Fife
...

Have you read this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.51.74 (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I am a St. Andrean but I still think my criticism stands. How the rankings are currently presented in the article seems the optimal way of doing so.

Rankings

By removing all but the very most recent results, you draw attention to their absence. Almost all other UK universities have league table listings going back to 1993, why is St Andrews a special case to have the omitted? 91.105.83.31 (talk) 10:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the user: "I severely disagree with the idea of listing university rankings for ~20 years across discontinued rankings. Users want concurrent, fast info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.244.161 (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)" . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.51.74 (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that any of the UK schools should have 15 years worth of rankings, rankings for +10 years ago are worthless and make the tables clunky. I think 5 years of rankings, for all schools, is an appropriate compromise between too much irrelevant information and too little data. - 08:56, 19 January 2009 (GMT)

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 Have you read [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_avoid_COI_edits|this]]?
 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/83.104.51.74|83.104.51.74]] ([[User talk:83.104.51.74|talk]]) 21:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+Indeed, I am a St. Andrean but I still think my criticism stands. How the rankings are currently presented in the article seems the optimal way of doing so.
 ==Rankings==