User talk:Crpjwovdelete
Hi there, I see you recently removed the entry for the Leiden rankings from the rankings infobox of a number of UK universities. It would be better to discuss this on the infobox talk page, where the decision was reached by consensus to include this ranking as one of the parameters, that way we can keep the same set of rankings for all universities. Robminchin (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
That's interesting, Robminchin. I see the Leiden is being 'tested' on a number of UK universities. But please see Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial pages. Previous discussion was to not include all the rankings, but main ones. Discussion from UK University Rankings Template that Leiden/CWTS is a biased indicator for this by biomedical and others. Crpjwovdelete (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- I've opened a discussion on whether it should be included on the template talk page. The previous discussion decided to include CWTS Leiden as one of the main rankings, as is demonstrated by the fact that it is included in the template. There was a question over whether it was biased towards STEM, which was answered that it did include humanities, and was probably less biased towards STEM than ARWU (a comparison of the rankings of the LSE, probably the ultimate non-STEM top university, in ARWU (151-200) and CWTS Leiden (90) would appear to indicate that this analysis is correct). It should also be noted that all rankings have biases, so if we are only to include unbiased rankings we would include no rankings at all (see also WP:BIASED for how Wikipedia treats biased sources generally). Robminchin (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Crpjwovdelete, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Crpjwovdelete! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 22:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC) |