Template talk:Infobox India university ranking/Archive 1

Other rankings
Opinions appreciated about these:

--Muhandes (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The Economic Times - ET Business school ranking: The Top 50 seems to be perception based only, so not appropriate to be included.
 * Careers360 - Rankings! India's best B-Schools 2011-12 no single list so probably wont be in the infobox.

CSR-GHRDC
The CSR-GHRDC ranking in both engineering and business has very limited participation of Major colleges. It gives an undue advantage for the participating institutes to get higher rank. Should we consider removing it? -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 21:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This objection was raised before which is why we don't list it at List of Indian engineering college rankings. We did allow it here since the journals/institutes which conduct and publish it seem to be notable and reliable, so we can't prevent editors from using it per se. It is better if at least it is used with a proper source. We added an asterisk to a footnote which says "limited participation". If we are to disallow its usage in all articles, I think it should be by a wide consensus. I would suggest starting discussion at WikiProject Education in India and see where the wind blows. --Muhandes (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Other rankings to consider (mostly a self reminder)

 * Outlook: Architecture, Fashion, Mass Communication, Social Work, Hotel Management 2011, Medical, Dental 2011
 * India Today: Arts 2012, Commerce 2011, Science 2011, Medicine 2011,

We can probably do medicine based on two, I rather not do any ranking with only a single member. --Muhandes (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Updating Reference Links
Can someone please update the reference links to reflect the more recent rankings, such as 'The Economist's Which MBA? 2012 rankings. Thanks! Batram (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 09:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

In the Medical rankings, the Dataquest link is unused, redundant and references to a ranking for engineering colleges. I have tried to rectify it, but I am new here. Help needed. --Dhruv7 (talk) 09:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Updating and removing outdated
I have started updated the ranking and removing those which were not updated for several years. If anyone has any objection please say so. --Muhandes (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

NIRF ranking is a highly controversial ranking
NIRF is probably the most controversial ranking that has been published in recent past. Kindly take a look at some of the outrage and discussions/news reports on NIRF rankings: 1) Hindustan Times 2) Times of India 3) The Hindu 4) The Wire 5) Career360 6) Indian Express 7) The Hindu Business Line

And there's an almost unanimous consensus among the community on the validity of the rankings that it is not a justified representation of the universities/colleges. I request involvement of SMEs to establish the inclusion of such a controversial ranking in the template. Kindly review, if such a controversial ranking is to be included in the Infobox template. Mediacomkol (talk) 09:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this discussion belongs here. If you wish, I will move it there. --Muhandes (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Invalid use of citations
The way this infobox is set up, is invalid. The refs are here, but specific content is at the articles where the template is used. This leaves specific content unsupported by refs after the template is first implemented. The source may be updated here and the content it is used to support in every article may not be. Likewise if the content is updated at the article, but the source is not updated with the access date, the actual citation given no longer supports the content. The refs have to be removed from this template. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe this is a common issue with Category:Templates that generate named references. Many template should appear on the latter category and they don't like Single chart and Certification Cite Ref. Someone changing the template is responsible for changing the articles and they often do, but they sometimes miss an article or two. What are you suggesting? A template without sources is definitely worse. And a template without named references means sources are not reused and appear twice. --Muhandes (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem happens when the ref and content fall out of sync, as happened at the diffs where you and i started interacting. the thing that needs to happen, is the refs need to be removed from this template. the content is BOOSTER anyway and this structure makes keeping it properly cited too difficult. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In essence you are correct - infoboxes do not require sources, they summarize material that is already sourced in the article. But as someone who was here before the sources were there, we had a huge problem with the hundreds of India universities and colleges adding unsourced rankings. This template hit two birds with one rock, it added an infobox and it provided an easy way to source. I'd hate to lose either of these benefits and go back to 2011. I have some thoughts on how we can keep things in sync, I'll write them later. --Muhandes (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've given it a little thought. Since the problem is that once a year the ranking changes and editors change the citation behind the named references we prevent this by adding the year to the named reference. I created an example in User:Muhandes/sandbox/IIur. Here is a usage example:


 * 2015 Ranking

The institute ranked 4 in 2015. creates

The institute ranked 4 in 2015.


 * Then after a year we add the 2016 ranking but don't remove (!) the 2015 one.


 * 2016 Ranking

The institute ranked 27 in 2016. creates

The institute ranked 27 in 2016.


 * As you can see, it didn't invalidate the original source, they both live together happily. Editors who want to use the new ranking need to actively edit and change both the text AND the source, preventing all problems and misunderstandings like we had, which begun this session. The year also appears on the template, which prevents any misunderstanding.
 * Let me know what you think. If you think it works I will need to devise a way to handle (or prevent) citations of two years at once and I will need to devise a way to check and update the 251 pages using the template.

--Muhandes (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you think? --Muhandes (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't care enough to push this further. This is horrible, however. Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. I think it is a valuable tool and much better than the situation we had before it existed. I thank you for raising those concerns, it made the template much better (or at least it will once I finish implementing it all). --Muhandes (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Appropriateness of infobox
I watch Jytdog's talkpage, and it made me aware of the talk section directly above this one, which I have been watching with interest. I've been looking at and thinking about this template, and I have some concerns that I'd like to raise here. It seems somewhat strange to me to have a template like this one, because it gives very prominent presentation to numbers that are inherently somewhat arbitrary and subjective, with the potential to come across as promotional for institutions with high rankings, contrary to WP:NOTADVERT. I can see how presenting the rankings from multiple ranking sources avoids original research, but it also creates an overly long template, that is further lengthened by the citations discussed just above.

It makes me think that such material just does not lend itself very well to an infobox, and that it would perhaps be better to present it in other ways. Do pages about higher education institutions from other countries have this kind of infobox? It seems to me that this information could be presented better in the form of regular text. In part, that could be added at Higher education in India, and in part as a "rankings" section of each individual page about a university. By presenting the information as regular text, editors could better explain the underlying meaning and limitations of the information, unlike a list of numbers in a template. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems like the consensus allows them, see Category:University and college rankings templates for other examples. I think the most used one is Infobox US university ranking with 632 transclusions but Infobox UK university rankings is also very strong in the consensus. I believe the reasoning is that at least this provides some common ground. Anyway, a text description is needed, and to my best knowledge always used, in conjunction with the infobox. Jytdog raised a valid point, which may or may not apply to the other templates. I think my solution is appropriate. --Muhandes (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that very helpful answer. I obviously was not aware of the wide use of such templates, but your explanation fully resolves my concerns. Again, thanks very much. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Careers360
Two months ago I started discussion at WT:INEI on the appropriateness of using Careers360 ranking. I invited whomever I could think of who is active at WP:INEI to the discussion, but no one came out with even a single argument why Careers360, which is not notable, should be allowed. I am leaving a comment about it here as well. If this remains uncontested I will remove it from the template and from every page using it.--Muhandes (talk) 08:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Times (World) (2019)
I noticed you were trying to add the Times World ranking for 2019 so I added it. This template is used by quite a number of articles, so I suggest that if you are not sure how to edit it, ask on the talk page or feel free to ask me personally for help. --Muhandes (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Updated rankings to be added
Hope I can add those Muhandes.Sanyam.wikime (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Times (World) (2020) | THE_W_2020 | category - 'General-international'
 * Week (India) (2019) | WEEK_E_2019 | category - 'Engineering-India'


 * I will try to do it over the weekend. --Muhandes (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You did not update the indexes, thus removed the Times Asia 2019 ranking from articles which used it. I don't see what catastrophe would have happened if this would have waited for the weekend. I fixed it. --Muhandes (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My sincere apology. Next time will take care of the formatting and seek help if required. Thanks for fixing the index and the message you left.Sanyam.wikime (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ I added The Week rankings for 2019. --Muhandes (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have list of some more rankings to be updated. I looked at the edit source and have a query. To include a ranking in between, do I have to change the label and data number of all rankings below it manually? --Sanyam.wikime (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you cannot use the same label twice, so you need to update all the numbers afterwards. I am using this script to do all the heavy lifting. --Muhandes (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you help me out with the script ? Its not working in the browser console. It will be great if you elaborate a little on the process. --Sanyam.wikime (talk) 08:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but I have no idea how scripts works, I just install them and they do (or they don't). I am using the script installer script, if that is any assistance. It has very simple installation instructions through the tab, and then you can easily install scripts. --Muhandes (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Restructuring the template
The current structure is terrible to read and maintain. I propose to change the structure to similar to that of Template:Infobox US university ranking. This structure seems to be readable and more organised. --Sanyam.wikime (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you please be more specific? What exactly disturbs you with this template, and how are you suggesting to solve it? --Muhandes (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The current template is large in size, seems unorganised, have numbered parameters and hard to read and edit. The proposed design can divide the page into sub pages based on categories, numbered parameters will be removed, it will appear more organised and readable. The design change will not affect the pages using the template in any way. I can give it a go. --Sanyam.wikime (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I do agree that this template's size is going out of hand, but I am not sure that what you are proposing is the right solution. To put things into context, what you are proposing is to take this template six years back. Specifically, you are proposing to undo this edit by, which merged the existing sub-templates into one template, and introduced the numbered parameters of the infobox template. I think that as a result the template became more maintainable, not less maintainable. Until your discussion above, no one has ever stated that numbered parameters are a problem, and to me they never were. I am uncertain how sub-templates help, as they require having to edit two files for every update in the future, instead of one.
 * I am unsure what the solution should look like, but I suspect that it lies elsewhere. In my opinion, one of main problems is that although consensus is, and has always been, that only the latest ranking should be used, this template keeps all the old rankings since 2016, and that is where most of the bulk sits. The reason for this is that, unlike the US template, no one is willing to update the articles when a new ranking is published. If someone would do so, we could remove 75% of the parameters, making this template manageable again. The articles are already categorized:, and if needed, I can create sub categories to ease the work. --Muhandes (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Addition of NIRF Dental Ranking
NIRF dental ranking has been added from the 2020 version. It ranks only 30 institutes, while 115 institutes participated in the process. I think this should be added to the template to. Thoughts on this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoodino (talk • contribs) 14:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I see no reason not to add it, if you know what you are doing. I recommend using the sandbox and creating some testcases. --Muhandes (talk) 09:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , Didn't get exactly what you mean say. Do not want to include the above mentioned ranking because of less number of participants and ranked institutions ? Please be specific. Zoodino (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how I can be more specific than what I already wrote: I see no reason not to add it. If you know what you are doing, you are welcome to do it. --Muhandes (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Trimming challenge
This template was never meant to become so long, maintaining old links. The only reason we keep them is that I lost interest in updating them myself and no one else took over it. Is anyone interested in this project? Does anyone want to take the challenge? I can easily create tracking categories for old listings so they can be updated. --Muhandes (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I just realised we already have, but 329 articles might be overwhelming. I created which should be populated over time, as an example of what can be done. --Muhandes (talk) 10:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I can try to spare some time for updating really old links. But want to clear some points with you:
 * What if some university achieved its best rank (say like 1st rank) in some ranking category in 2016. But now they are ranked below in the latest ranking. So how should we deal with it ? Should there be the 2016 rank along with the new rank in the article or should we remove it ?
 * What if some ranking category is discontinued and no longer published. Should we remove it ?
 * Thanks. Zoodino (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For question #1, there is wide consensus that only the latest ranking should be used. For question #2 I am not aware of any consensus, so use judgement. I would say keep it for 3 years, after that it is completely irrelevant. --Muhandes (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , Also, what if the institute in no longer ranked in the latest ranking. There can be two subparts:
 * The institute did not applied for the ranking.
 * The institute applied but was not ranked. Zoodino (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Since usually we cannot tell the reason, if an institute is no longer ranked we usually remove its ranking. I can say from experience that it is very common. --Muhandes (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , What if their is some ranking present on the article page which is not in the template. In my opinion if the ranking institution is notable than it should be kept, otherwise it should be removed. Can you confirm me on that ? Zoodino (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no rule mandating the use of the template, so you should use judgement. I think the important point is avoiding boosterism with partial rankings. --Muhandes (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Completed trimming of 2016 rankings
I updated all the articles in Category:Pages using Infobox India university ranking with 2016 rankings (the category is been blanked). And I also trimmed the 2016 rankings from the template and updated the template at Template:Infobox_India_university_ranking/sandbox. If it looks good to you, I can copy the sandbox template to the main template. Zoodino (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well done. I copied the sandbox to the main, added and resynched the sandbox. Note that India Today engineering ranking of 2017 was split into government and  private rankings. --Muhandes (talk) 09:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is time consuming to update all ranking on one article, have to browse through different tabs (some of them even not having a search bar). So I am trying to update taking same ranking categories together in a Category. I want to give this a try and see how it turns out. Zoodino (talk) 07:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

✅ Completed trimming. Total number of rankings are reduced as 113 -> 45. Page Size is reduced as 48950 KB -> 20806 KB. In the future if someone wants to work on maintaining the template they can use Category:Pages using Infobox India university ranking with older rankings for tagging rankings. -Zoodino (talk) 07:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the great work. I am a bit confused about that category you listed, we have, is that what you meant? --Muhandes (talk) 06:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , The existing category - is for all all the rankings that are not the latest updated version. While the, if for tagging individual or set of rankings while working on maintenance of template (trimming etc.). I would add this to the template doc also.Zoodino (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I think trimming should be an ongoing task, so it may make sense to keep both. Have fun! Muhandes (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

NIRF 2020 Dental
Can someone add the NIRF Dental 2020 parameter. It was added this year by the MHRD. defcon5 (talk) 05:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you intend to use it extensively? I spent too much time on making changes to this template which are only used in one or two articles. If you do, I'd be happy to assist. --Muhandes (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * yes I want to use it. Would be great it is added. Thankyou defcon5 (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Muhandes (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Agricultural ranking
If someone is interested, I can add ICAR agricultural ranking to the template, but only if someone shows interest. --Muhandes (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about the Agricultural ranking, but the India Today ranking for Law needs update to 2020. defcon5 (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ India Today Law 2020. I'll be happy to update or add anything for which there is consensus, I am just not going to do anything anymore unless someone requests it. --Muhandes (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Times (Asia) (2021)
Times (Asia) (2021) rankings are out, please include them. Thanks. 47.9.166.19 (talk) 05:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Muhandes (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)