I've left a few basic notes regarding improvement of articles at the following places. Members are requested to comment and help improve these articles:

• Talk:Education in India#Overhaul: Top-level article for our project. Top priority! (I hope we can find the level of co-operation we found while working on List of universities in India for pushing this to FA)
• Template_talk:Education_in_India#Overhaul: High priority. This should ideally be the top-level template for our project.
• Then I've left some comments at Talk:List of universities in India#Lead language, Talk:List of autonomous higher education institutes in India#Other institutions and Talk:List of deemed universities#Comments for moving forward after the List of universities in India split.

Feel free to comment here or on the respective talk pages. Regards--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I found a languishing Portal:Indian Education which was made back in 2009 and has been the same since. Incidentally, it has been listed at the project page for over 6 months and we haven't had a single improvement in it in this time. Any help in improving it is welcome. Please provide ideas, comments, suggestions at Portal talk:Indian Education.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Opinions about what B-school rankings to add to {{Infobox India university ranking}} are appreciated in this page. Also, if anyone can supply the full top 50/100 list of CNBC-TV18's book. --Muhandes (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems like getting input is rather difficult, is this project alive at all? Input about ET is still required, I see it mentioned above, but its validity is unclear. Regarding CNBC-TV18, they published the 2012 edition online which makes the above request irrelevant. --Muhandes (talk) 10:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The B school rankings arena is not mature and reliable in India. I have heard of B schools that bribe publishers. Lets include only those which have high reliability and participation. Some rankings that I think are reliable:

*Career Launcher Rankings

*T.I.M.E Institute Rankings

*Pagalguy Rankings (This is a ranking based on aspirants' perceptions)

Comments Welcome --Anbu121 (talk me) 12:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy at least someone pays attention to this page, thanks for the input. I presume you mean to add these to the obvious ones already used by the template, to which I believe there is consensus to use. If you want to discuss removing those, lets start a separate discussion.

Regarding the ones you suggested, I'll start by strongly opposing Pagalguy on the grounds that it is based singularly on aspirants' perceptions, and I simply don't see how this can be the single parameter for a ranking. Does what the industry or the academic world think mean nothing? Do actual placements or academic excellence stand for nothing? Just as an example, aspirants' perceptions are 10% of the Hindustan Times rankings, and about 15% in the Business Today one. As a matter of fact, I would go as far as to support a complete project ban on using this ranking.

Moving to the other two, I'm rather against them, though not as strongly. First, technically, they both don't seem to be rankings, more like categorizations. I don't think it is wise to mix rankings with categorizations. Second, I'm not convinced of their notability. If you look at Career Launcher's home page you'll see their business (on the banner) is "Online CAT Preparation CAT Online MBA Coaching, CAT Preparation, IIM-CAT, MBA Entrance, CAT IIM, CAT Papers, CAT Coaching", not a very reassuring sight. T.I.M.E. is also quite the same, with "Best Coaching for Online CAT-2012, IIM MBA entrance, IIT-JEE, GRE & GMAT". I don't see any of the other signs of notability either. For sure, I'm not local, so maybe I'm wrong and they are notable institutes. Third, their methodology isn't very clear. Compare the cryptic description they supply with this.

Perhaps we should have started the discussion by setting some ground rules for what to include, and then checking which rankings fit. I'd go with something like these:

• Notable source. The ranking must be by a source which has notability demonstrated by having an article. This would exclude quite a few, but they can be included if an article is created on the institute or the ranking.
• Full ranking. The ranking must list all institutes in one list and give a numerical positions for each institute. Having one list excludes Career360 which only has lists by regions. Having numerical positions excludes T.I.M.E. and CL.
• Methodology disclosed, and includes multiple parameters. This excludes rankings which only go by internet visibility, or aspirant perception, but maybe also ET which does not list the methodology.

This is of course just a proposal. What do people thing of these? --Muhandes (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with your comments. These three rankings came to my mind because all these three are extremely popular among aspirants as well as B school students. TIME and Career launcher are the top 2 institutes for MBA coaching in India and Pagalguy is India's top online MBA forum. (I am not promoting these institutes, just stating the facts). These rankings are not notable, but in my opinion these are much more reliable than ET and career360. I don't have any evidence to defend their notability to the general public, but these are highly notable among students.

Options available to us:

Pagalguy- one possible option is explicitly stating in the info box that it is aspirants' perception. If it is not possible, we can leave out this.

TIME and CL - I am not sure if there would be any problems if we convert the categorization into rankings. For example, in Career Launcher, all the institutes in the cluster 1 can be ranked as 1-6 and all the institutions in the cluster 2 can be ranked as 7-19. I found this featured article Georgetown University having categorized ranking.

I cant see anything wrong with the criteria proposed, but there are no reliable ranking publishers in India meeting the criteria other than those already in the template. --Anbu121 (talk me) 17:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I see I am very late into this discussion. To Muhandes' first comment a month ago, I don't think there are many reliable rankings around. TIME and CL are definitely not reliable, though, yes, as Anbu121 says, they are quite popular. Lynch7 17:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You are not late, the discussion started today.

It's always better to get the local perspective, I had no idea these websites are popular (which of course may say little about notability or reliability). I think we agree non-notable rankings should not be used. I agree we could have found a solution to the categorization problem, so I stroke it out of the criteria I proposed. This leaves The Economic Times as the only possible notable addition, but the methodology is unclear. So unless we have objections, at this point we don't add anything to the template, and we'll use the above guidelines to decide in the future. --Muhandes (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Mint Mint - CoolAvenues.com B-School Annual Placements Survey 2011 – Does not include multiple parameters, only placement, so fails criteria 3.
• Business Standard How we did it – does anyone have access to the actual rankings? Maybe a scanned page? It seems promising.
• Businessworld maybe here – link does not work for me right now so I can't say.

Comments? --Muhandes (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Mint must not be included in the rankings box, but I think we should not prevent it from being mentioned in the prose. I am not able to access the other two. --Anbu121 (talk me) 11:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you please explain why? While I did begin this as criteria for the infobox, of the three criteria I think #1 and #3 apply just as well for prose. We don't want to list rankings which are not notable (#1) and that are not reliable (#3). I'm saying if the methodology is not fully disclosed, or if it is based on a single parameter, it is not reliable, at least in comparison with the other rankings. #2 is a technical issue, so it might not apply to prose. --Muhandes (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I will address #3 first. A disclosed methodology gives us some confidence that the rankings might be reliable. Even if the methodology is disclosed, it is impossible to verify that the rankings have indeed been given in a fair and unbiased manner, which is beyond the ambit of Wikipedia. In the prose, We are just going to mention that xyz newspaper in its placement survey 2011, ranked abc institute in # position based on placement statistics. This statement is very much valid as per the core policies of Wikipedia as long as proper reference is provided and the reference is a reliable secondary source. Coming to #1, I agree that this applies to prose as well and Mint being a newspaper is notable. --Anbu121 (talk me) 04:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course, being valid per core policies is a requirement. But the entire point of have specific guidelines is that we decide what of the many reliable sources should be added to articles. We have the prerogative to decide that a ranking, though listed by a reliable source, will not be listed since it is unreliable. This is especially true since rankings are by nature comparative (the institute was ranked #1 here but #25 there). We can therefore require that they have some basic starting point. reliability seems to me to be like a good starting point. --Muhandes (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not inclined to think that just because a ranking discloses the methodology, it becomes more reliable than another ranking that has not. By the way, I think Mint has disclosed the methodology to some extent. --Anbu121 (talk me) 21:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is not a proof of reliability, but as we do not have access to the data, the best we can do is set a threshold. The threshold I proposed is "methodology disclosed, and includes multiple parameters", which seems to me to be a very minimal and acceptable requirement. --Muhandes (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

List of schools in India needs to be overhauled, but I think a system like List of universities in India would suit it better than List of institutions of higher education in India, since if we follow the latter, there are going to be many articles made out of this one. But, the problem then would be maintaining Notability in all of them; however, if the former is followed, notability guidelines will be easier to follow, inclusion criteria easier to decide.

Since all schools aren't notable, I propose the following inclusion criteria:

1. The school must offer classes till 12th(relaxable to 10th if criteria 2 is met)
2. We list only those with third-party verifiable sources

--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

We might want to build upon this failed proposal. Lynch7 12:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The second criteria listed is usually the main reason why articles about secondary schools get deleted. The failed proposal listed has an additional criteria - that the curriculum of the school should get independently covered - and that would put us in a soup. In India a school's curriculum is dictated by CBSE or ICSE and no school makes any noteworthy exception to that. In summary, give it a try if you want to but as I said, meeting even the second criteria is usually tough for most schools.Wikishagnik (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think having a separate criteria for schools and other educational institutions in India is a good idea as this may be looked upon as a backdoor to protect Indian schools from the notability guidelines. Given that, I do agree that we should keep all educational institutes exempt from being speedy deleted under WP:CSD#A7. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note:To put my original comments in perspective, the inclusion criteria I proposed was not a wikipedia or project-wide criteria for articles. It was a proposed inclusion criteria for List of schools in India originally posted at its talkpage. The comments were copy-pasted here later as a means to spur discussion about that list, not about notability criteria for school articles.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone explain this? Is there such an entity? --Muhandes (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Since the editor removed the template I added asking for sources to the existence of this group, I had no choice but to go AfD. You are all welcome to join the discussion. --Muhandes (talk) 10:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you added this text in the talk page of that article there was no need of this ruffle. I'm seeing this now only. Anyway since none responded to this query here I will put the same in Wikipedia:WikiProject India. Hope more people, with an understanding of India get involved in the discussion. Aravind V R (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Ruffle? I'm not sure why you think there is a ruffle, except maybe on your side. WT:IN may be a place to get more input, since the relevant institutes seem to be research institutes, not just education. Having no definition or criteria, I could not figure out where it belongs, so here is the place I looked first. --Muhandes (talk) 05:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Let us stop accusing each other. But I certainly think the talk page of an article is the first place where one should raise concerns regarding that article.

Yes this is the place where the discussion should have took place but since none responded I think it is better to discuss it in Noticeboard for India-related topics Aravind V R (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you think of this? an article about a law school which does not even exist yet? Should we have them? --Muhandes (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Please correct some information and add information with relevant sources. I'm waiting for your reply.--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 04:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

In some Indian school college related articles we face regular problems that people include non-notable, unsourced entries. I have to fight regularly to clean up "notable people" lists. I requested an RFC here: Talk:Ballygunge_Government_High_School#Notable_alumni_section.21. But, I am interested to use this RFC for all similar disputes (that means in many articles). Can you suggest me how shall I use it? Shall I move a copy of it to somewhere else (eg. talk/RFC)? In addition can you add your opinion in talk please? --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey..Im new to editing and have taken up Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute ,my alma mater, as my first project..Initially a very disorganised article i have tried to give it some structure and depth. It would be great if some of the other editors from this project could contribute and enhance the article. Thanks! User:Nishantgopal (talk) NishantGopal 07:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

There's duplicated content between Nalanda and Nalanda University; both describe the ancient university, while the former also describes the settlement and the latter also describes the modern university. The historical information about the old university should be removed from one of these articles, or perhaps the information should be split from them both to create a new article on the old university. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello.

User:Intelligentguy89 recently moved List of institutions of higher education in Maharashtra to List of higher education institutions in Maharashtra. The reason given in the move log is New title is more concise and unambiguous (earlier title could be interpreted as List of institutions of "higher education in Maharashtra").

I'm starting this discussion so that a consensus on the naming scheme may be obtained. The previous naming scheme List of institutions of higher education in statename was arrived at after discussion in #State_Lists_Format above, and per WP:INEI/HELIST, it is the format being followed for the current (30) lists.

I personally agree that the new title is more concise, but I think we should arrive at a consensus about this before moving the lists.

Pinging everyone involved in the earlier discussion: @Aaditya 7, Naveenpf, Muhandes, Abhinay.leo, MikeLynch, Nitish.game, and Rahulghose:

Best regards--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

PS:We also have List of institutions of higher education in India.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 08:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I do not agree on the ambiguous part. I may be wrong but I think first way is older British way and the later is newer American way of writing. I do agree it will be more concise to just say List of higher education institution in xyz. Grammatically both are correct so we should not move to the new format unless there is a strong reason to do so. - abhi (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the title "List of higher education institutions in statename" is better than "List of institutions of higher education in statename". It is definitely more concise. If other articles like this are not yet having titles in the concise format, then their titles should also be changed. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The second options seems more apt. --Eiennotoso (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I have been participating in WikiProject India Tag & Assess 2014 drive. Many of the new pages are for educational institutions. I have been following the principles that Universities are of "high" importance, colleges are of "mid" importance, and isolated schools are of "low" importance. Am I right in these ratings? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Its not so simple. All universities are not high importance. many will be mid or low. Ditto with Colleges & Schools. AshLin (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Have started updating the list of schools in Mumbai and have also attached the website link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_schools_in_Mumbai

Have added 20 schools and will add more shortly Dsouzaronald (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles about individual Kendriya Vidyalaya schools have been nominated for deletion. The discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kendriya Vidyalaya school articles. Comments would be welcome. 103.6.159.65 (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

IP 202.142.107.240 has removed references from several articles about education in India. I'm not sure whether or not these are reliable sources that should be restored. Please can a subject expert review the edits? Thanks, Certes (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It has been proposed at Talk:Indian Institute of Technology Joint Entrance Examination#Requested move 8 January 2017 that the articles on IIT-JEE and AIEEE be renamedto match their current names. Please comment there. 103.6.159.93 (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Bansal Learning is upmfor deletion. See Wp:Articles for deletion/Bansal Learning. 103.6.159.81 (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Does this edit seem right?--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The reasoning does not seem valid, because WP:LISTN does not require each element in a list to be notable. However, I'm not sure the notability of the list can be shown, and beside, this seems like WP:LISTCRUFT. Why do we need this list of schools where none of them is notable and none will ever be. --Muhandes (talk) 11:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I started discussion on this subject, comments very welcome. --Muhandes (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure you are aware of the UGC demand to drop university from names of deemed universities and the fight back. There are multiple very reliable sources for this ([1] [2] [3] [4]) And there are even sources that say this applies to private universities as well. Per WP:CRYSTAL we cannot change the name of an institute until they change it themselves. If they choose to go against the UGC and the SC the name should remain. If an institute chooses to change their name (for example Hindustan University which is back to be "Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science" or VIT University which went for "VIT") then by all means, the article should be moved. Comments most welcome. --Muhandes (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Many more are renaming. SRM University back to SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Thapar University changed to Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology University and then to Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, K L University to Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation. If you are aware of more list them here and I'll be happy to sort them out. In a month or two I'll do a full tun over the list of deemed universities. --Muhandes (talk) 10:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I made some suggestions on how to improve List of deemed universities. You are all welcome to join the discussion. --Muhandes (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi I've requested for some instructions and guidance on these page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cotton_University. So if anyone would like to solve the problem, kindly reply. I am not a experienced user here, so apology if I've missed somethingNikish21 (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done I made a formal merger proposal in your name and also supported it myself. Everyone else is also very welcome to comment on the merger proposl. --Muhandes (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

A proposal for the change of inclusion criteria of List of agricultural universities in India was made at Talk:List of agricultural universities in India#Inclusion criteria again. --Muhandes (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The 2017 discussion about using Careers360's ranking has gone a bit stale so I rebooted the discussion. To recap, since some concerns/questions were raised and not addressed for several months, de facto consensus was assumed, namely that they should not be used. Careers360's ranking were removed from {{Infobox India university ranking}} and consequentially from all articles using them. Upon Krish CB's request, I now reboot the discussion. The requirement for using a ranking (according to my understanding of the consensus which were not opposed so far are:

• Requirement #1: Notable source. The ranking must be by a source which has notability demonstrated by having an article. (Note that this has nothing to do with the verifiability of the source, and does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity.)
• Requirement #2: Full ranking. The ranking must list all institutes in one list and give a numerical positions for each institute.
• Requirement #3: Methodology disclosed, includes multiple parameters, and deemed reliable by the community.

The concerns raised were:

• Concern #1: Careers360 is not a notable source. This might have changed in 2017 when an article was created. The article is in a pretty sorry state, but notability has not been disputed.
• Concern #2: The Top Engineering Colleges in India 2017 Ranking are not a ranking but a grouping, failing the "numerical positions" part of requirement #2
• Concern #3: All the other rankings (Top Universities in India 2017, Top Medical Colleges in India 2017, Top Law Colleges in India 2017 and Top MBA Colleges in India 2017) are not "Full rankings" per requirement #2 since they don't "list all institutes in one list and give a numerical positions for each institute", as private and public colleges are ranked separately. They all have an "Overall Score" column, which could be translated directly to a single numerical position, if this is the consensus. A second possibility is to treat it as two separate rankings and change the requirement.

Please, if you wish to take part in this discussion, don't just say "I want to use this ranking". Address the concerns raised. --Muhandes (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Muhandes" Can i use the ranking like "It was ranked 2nd among top government bschool in India 2018 by Careers360" for bschool, universities, law colleges, medical colleges. There is ranking in these articles not a grouping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krish CB (talk • contribs) 10:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me quote myself: if you wish to take part in this discussion, don't just say "I want to use this ranking". Address the concerns raised. --Muhandes (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Update: the article Careers360 was removed, so Concern #1 is now back on the table as well. The discussion has stalled again as well, so for now I presume consensus remains unchanged. --Muhandes (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Would someone from WP:INDIA take a look at this article and assess it for notability? It was directly added to the mainspace today, but it wasn't submitted to WP:AFC for review. If the subject is not notable for a stand-alone article, then maybe redirecting to Ramaiah Institute of Technology would be better than deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no special notability guideline for WP:INEI, so if autonomous higher education institutes are considered notable, so is this one, and vice-verse. After trimming off all the fluff, the only thing left in the article for notability is an AICTE listing. It is not in top 100 NIRF or any other ranking I can find. I see no other evidence (or claim) for notability. --Muhandes (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

My bad, it is ranked, at least by Outlook India, this is usually enough. --Muhandes (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to take a look at this Muhandes and also for uploading a new infobox image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

For the India university rankings template, we should also add a ranking for QS India too. Shubhams123 (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Shubhams123: I was not aware of its existence, it seems it is the first year it is published. I support your idea, it seems to be a separate ranking which should be added. If no one objects (and I don't think anyone will), I can add it to the template when I find the time. --Muhandes (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Muhandes: That would be nice. Thanks. Also, please do let me know when you make the change. Shubhams123 (talk) 08:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Shubhams123: It should be working though I didn't have time to test it. Let me know if I broke anything. --Muhandes (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of a new Indian university ranking templates published by The Week and Outlook in the Template:Infobox India university ranking.^[1][2]Neurofreak (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)  Done

There is a requested move at Talk:Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad that would benefit from your input. Please come and help! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 23:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Banaras Hindu University, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. User4edits (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)