Talk:Webometrics Ranking of World Universities
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 29 October 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
My edits of this morning
[edit]I reordered the introduction to say more clearly what the web rankings *are*, and to play down the hint of unencyclopedic marketing tone that had crept into it. In the main article text, I removed two or three paragraphs justifying the theory behind the rankings because 1) an article about the ranking system is not a place to go into any depth about the theory that underlies it; 2) it also had a bit of marketing tone; and 3) some of it was very hard to follow. It appears that at least some of the editors who have contributed to this article are affiliated with CSIC, and I would remind them that Wikipedia is not a place for promoting a product or a particular point of view or theory of anything. If I have introduced errors or corrupted the text with my edits, please fix them; but please don't simply reintroduce the material. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Merger of 2009 and 2010 ranking pages
[edit]The result of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Webometrics Ranking of World Universities AfD on this article stated that the contents of the 2010 and 2009 articles should be merged into this article. The relevant portion (top 50) of the 2010 rankings were already here, so I just redirected that article. However, I'm not sure what to do with the 2009 ranking article. It contains two lists (January and July), with a top 100 in each. I know that we don't want to keep adding the top 50 twice a year for every year going forward to this article--that would make this article monstrous within a few years. How do others want to handle this? Maybe include the top 50 for the most current ranking, and the top 10 for previous rankings? 06:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Wow...I totally forgot about this. Given that there has been no input, at this point, I am going to copy over the top 10 from Jan & July, and finish this off. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
removed non-notable AfD template
[edit]I removed an AfD notification from the top of the article, and established the rankings' notability. Hit me up if you wanna chat about it.Jtmorgan (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding those references--I agree that they establish the site's notability sufficiently to remove the tag. Just for your future reference, a "notability" tag is not an AfD notification. AfD is the process when an article is formally discussed for 7 days, and deletion of the article is considered. Often, an article that has been tagged for notability for a while will be taken to AfD, but not in all cases--sometimes it will take years, and many times an article will be taken to AfD without adding the notability template first. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- ahh... makes sense. Thanks for the clarification! Jtmorgan (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Ranking needs to be updated
[edit]The source (http://www.webometrics.info/en/search/Rankings/Harvard%20type%3Amundial), has been up-dated a few times since our list. For example, Harvard is #1. (This entry for "Harvard" shows a problem with the rankings, since divisions of Harvard come up, thus pushing down other schools.) Kdammers (talk) 06:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Keeping article updated
[edit]Considering that the notability has been challenged in the past, I'd suggest that the time sensitive information needs to be updated regularly, or that the article be cut back down to a stub.
There's no justification for an obsolete article. Is anyone actually still working on this? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
See also
[edit]I'd like to see a "See also " section with links to other university ranking systems. Kdammers (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Any assistance in developing this article is appreciated. I don't actually actively edit in this area of Wikipedia, and am forever bogged down in contentious areas. I don't see that this is going to change in the immediate future, so updating this article is on a 'never going to get to it' wishlist. Happy editing!--Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)