68.149.249.173

March 2019

Hello, I'm Leventio. I noticed that you recently removed content from University of Calgary without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Do not remove declared connections from talk page. Leventio (talk) 07:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I could remove it because it said if the conditions are met (which I thought they were...)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

University of Calgary - NPOV (moved talk from own talk page)

Hi,

You did undid my removal of the NPOV tag from the University of Calgary. Having read through the article, I could not find any information that could be seen as violating NPOV? I think its inappropriate to have a tag up there for several weeks without at the very least having a neutral editor review and make a decision. Please follow up on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.249.173 (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm really not the editor you should be bringing this up with (rather you should be bringing this up in the University of Calgary talk page). I'm not the one that added the NPOV tag, I simply reverted your edits, which was absent of any explanation in either edit summary or in the talk page (as noted earlier, your removal of a stated declaration was my primary issue of concern). A word of caution, when someone removes a template with zero explanation in the edit summary or the talk page, its going to catch the attention of an editor, and will probably be seen as some form of blanking.

That said, with regards to the article itself (and not the declaration in the talk page), the NPOV tag seems to be added on 27 January 2018 by another IP users, when they noted concerns over "tone [that] favours the institution," (I assume they were referring to WP:BOOSTER). That said, looking over the article, I'm actually inclined to agree with the removal of the NPOV template (outside of MoS/formatting issues, there isn't really anything there that violate POV imo). I went ahead and removed the NPOV template in the article (though not the declaration... don't remove that). That said, in most circumstances, you would probably need to bring up a removal of a template in the talk page (university articles generally don't get that much attention from users, so I sorta just went ahead and removed it). Also just a heads up, when you make a message, be sure to sign it using ~~~~, so I know who left the message. Thanks! Leventio (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:BOOST

I'd advise you to read it more carefully. Items of concern relating to the Lead section. The entire section of "Avoid undue weight"

"Do not give undue weight to rankings in the lead paragraphs or elsewhere in the article. Make sure to state the obvious in the first sentences of the lead paragraphs: it doesn't help the reader to know a university was ranked highly if he or she doesn't even know what or where it is in the first place! Moreover, the lead is not a section to astonish readers by establishing the quality of the college or university, only to serve as a summary of the rest of the article. Nor does the lead of the article have to include a preponderance of rankings and superlatives to establish the notability of a college or university since all accredited colleges and universities are inherently notable."

Also within the last section of "Be concise, precise, and honest"

"Limit rankings to a single section rather than spreading them throughout the article... Finally, do not use rankings in the lead as these are specific facts that should appear later in the article and give undue weight to one publication's rankings or methodologies."

I'm willing to work with you on the article (its hard to find collaborators with university articles to be frank), but I'd highly suggest you read WP:UNIGUIDE, which includes a number of standard reached by the WikiProject Universities community. Leventio (talk) 06:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Under 50 universities is an annually published ranking metric of younger universities by all major university ranking organizations (THE, QS, etc.). It allows younger universities a chance to stand out as they have had less time to become prestigious vs. older universities. I doubt that this ranking category falls under WP: BOOST guidelines but I can understand that the wording in this situation might make it seem like that. How about a sentence like this: "The University of Calgary was ranked X in the X ranking for universities in 2019, and was rank X in the X ranking of under 50 universities"?

Honestly, I've been expunging most Canadian university article leads of direct rank references in leads. Its stated pretty clearly in the last section of BOOST I quoted, "Limit rankings to a single section rather than spreading them throughout the article... Finally, do not use rankings in the lead as these are specific facts that should appear later in the article and give undue weight to one publication's rankings or methodologies. It makes it clear that all rankings should be placed later in the article, in an appropriate section that can properly hash out its content (i.e. Reputation section). The last part is also an important thing to note, as placing a specific ranking (regardless of how reputable you may think they are) gives undue weight to that company's ranking schemes and methodologies (were excluding other reputable rankings such as QS, ARWU, USN&WR, URAP, Leidens, etc., some of which, like QS, also make their own 50 under 50 rankings).

Furthermore, WP:BOOST sections makes it pretty clear to not use rankings for the reason to "make the university stand out more". As noted in "Avoid undue weight," Moreover, the lead is not a section to astonish readers by establishing the quality of the college or university... Nor does the lead of the article have to include a preponderance of rankings and superlatives to establish the notability of a college or university." It isn't Wikipedia's role to give any university a "better chance to stand up," against any other university. Wikipedia is a neutral platform, where we let the facts speak for itself (its sort of the driving point of WP:BOOST).

Also on a semantical note, the annual top 50 under 50 (renamed Best Young Universities) is a ranking that the University of Calgary no longer qualifies for (2016 was their last year, as they just turned 50 that year). The ranking has since been updated (in 2018), which no longer has Calgary on their listing (UofC being 53 years old, those rankings being for under 50 institutions). Leventio (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to International rankings of Pakistan have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. CLCStudent (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at International rankings of Pakistan. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. CLCStudent (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

---