Template talk:Infobox Canadian university rankings

Citations

Citations are out of date. ARWU citation isn't even a webpage no longer, and the THESQ citations are dated back to 2008. (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.84.97 (talk)

Notes

Possible additions to be made: Research Infosource. TastyCakes (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

While the Macleans category is of course Medical/Doctoral, I think the chart could make it clearer that it is not a medical ranking.--69.123.112.18 (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not a fan of how Macleans splits universities up. Any suggestions? TastyCakes (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say that we toss out Macleans all together. Its ranking methodology is questioned by many universities, and since many refused to provide Macleans with information, it is not a credible basis for ranking. 16:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It is, however, the most well known ranking of Canadian universities, and though it is criticised by many, I believe it should remain. TastyCakes (talk) 04:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that maybe we should add THES-QS and ARWU rankings for within Canada instead of just world and NA ranks. --69.123.112.18 (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we could put the Canada rankings in brackets after the world rankings? TastyCakes (talk) 04:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure who decided to post the original rankings, but the THES numbers did not match properly; it's now fixed. As well, I removed the ARWU numbers, as the provided links were unverifiable; (this can easily be re-added if someone actually takes the time to find proper citations). As for Macleans vs. everything else: I would argue that Macleans is actually more accurate than the world rankings. This applies, at the very least, to the ARWU, which seems altogether objectionable on several accounts. However, facts and figures must be entered regardless of individual members' opinions. 6mat1 (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

HESA Ranking

This is in regards to the recent removal of the HESA data from this template. The template is called Canadian University Ranking and the HESA article is a ranking of Universities. I don't see any reason for research rankings not to be included. I believe that it should remain. Lets discuss the issue here and come to an understand. In the meantime, I'm reversing the removal.CanadaRed (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Problematic inclusion

I found the template a bit messy to read. It doesn't have tags for national and subject ranks of QS when having counterparts for ARWU and THE. Besides, we don't normally include disciplinary rankings in such a template because of the complexity of the classification system. See the discussion on the US template talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.189.206.149 (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)