Jump to content

Talk:List of universities in India

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former FLCList of universities in India is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 4, 2011Featured list candidateNot promoted
January 29, 2012Featured list candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured list candidate

Resources

[edit]
Autonomous Organizations of Department of Higher Education, MHRD
List
⇒University State Private Deemed Central NITs IITs IIMs IIITs IISc and IISERs
List ugc.ac.in
List		 ugc.ac.in ugc.ac.in
education.
nic.in		 ugc.ac.in ccb.nic.in education.
nic.in 		education.
nic.in		 education.
nic.in 		education.
nic.in
Year education.
nic.in
Act education.
nic.in		 Central
Universities
Act, 2009		 NIT Act,
2007		 Institutes of
Technology
Act, 1961		 The Societies
Registration
Act, 1860
UGC Act, 1956 and AICTE Act, 1987

Progress

[edit]

All the basic stuff is  Done !! --Muhandes (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

State Status User
Andhra Pradesh  Done User:Muhandes
Arunachal Pradesh  Done User:Muhandesd
Assam  Done User:Muhandes
Bihar  Done User:Muhandes
Chhattisgarh  Done User:Muhandes
Delhi  Done User:Muhandes
Goa  Done User:Muhandes
Gujarat  Done User:Muhandes
Haryana  Done User:Muhandes
Himachal Pradesh  Done User:Muhandes
Jammu & Kashmir  Done User:Muhandes
Jharkhand  Done User:Muhandes
Karnataka  Done User:Muhandes
Kerala  Done naveenpf, User:Muhandes
Madhya Pradesh  Done abhinay.leo
Maharashtra  Done abhinay.leo
Manipur  Done User:Muhandes
Meghalaya  Done User:Muhandes
Mizoram  Done User:Muhandes
Nagaland  Done abhinay.leo
Orissa  Done naveenpf,abhinay.leo
Puducherry  Done User:Muhandes
Punjab  Done User:Muhandes
Rajasthan  Done User:Muhandes
Sikkim  Done User:Muhandes
Tamil Nadu  Done User:Muhandes
Tripura  Done User:Muhandes
Uttarakhand  Done User:Muhandes
Uttar Pradesh  Done User:Muhandes
West Bengal  Done User:Muhandes

Year of establishment

[edit]

Moved here
What I've been using:

  • Central/NIT/IIT: What the institute lists as year of establishment
  • State: Year from UGC list, sometimes with a note when it is very different from what the university states
  • Deemed: Year stated by university and in parenthesis year deemed status was awarded
  • Private: Year listed in Gazette

Any thoughts? --Muhandes (talk) 06:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other institutes

[edit]

I'd like to hear if we have consensus that autonomous institutes which are not listed as part of group should be listed at all. This includes the following:

  1. National Institute of Foundry and Forge Technology
  2. National Institute of Industrial Engineering
  3. School of Planning and Architecture, Bhopal
  4. School of Planning and Architecture, Vijayawada.
  • Sanskrit & Vedic Institutions - a list of four institutes, three of which are already listed as deemed (Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidyapeeth and Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidyapith) leaving just one:
  2. Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha
  • Other questionable institutes. I'm copying here the list of other institutes which we are not certain about yet:
  2. All India Institute of Medical Sciences
  3. Indian Institute of Forest Management
  4. National Institute of Fashion Technology
  5. National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education & Research
  6. Navsari Agricultural University - ICAR recognition, discussion below
  7. Junagadh Agricultural University - ICAR recognition, discussion below
  8. Raja Mansingh Tomar Music and Art University
  9. Rajmata Vijayraje Scindia Agricultural University - ICAR recognition, discussion below
  10. Indian Statistical Institute
  11. The National Centre for Biological Sciences
  12. Institute of Mathematical Sciences Listed under Homi Bhabha National Institute here.
  13. Uttarakhand Open University - DEC recognition, discussed below
  14. Senate of Serampore College (University) - separate discussion started
  15. National Institute of Science Education and Research - Discussed in below
  16. Institute of Mathematics and Applications, Bhubaneswar
  17. Xavier Institute of Management, Bhubaneswar
  18. Indian Institute of Tourism and Travel Management
  19. Kerala University of Health Sciences - seems like a State University, maybe just a matter of the UGC not updating the list - UGC updated the list
  20. Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University - again, maybe the list is not up to date - UGC updated the list
  21. Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies - and another - UGC updated the list
  22. Sree Chitra Thirunal Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology
  23. Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research
  24. National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research
  25. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research

Please discuss using these numbers. --Muhandes (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was split, please continue here
For 13, I found that the Jawaharlal Nehru Agricultural University was split into 2 and Rajmata Vijayraje Scindia Agricultural University (see this) was formed. Now, it seems this university is accredited only by Indian Council of Agricultural Research (see this) and not by UGC. I'll look into this and update with proper references. - abhi (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So here is something interesting, all agricultural universities come under ICAR (and may or may not be accredited by UGC) and here is the complete list of agricultural universities. It explains 3 of our uncertain universities - Navsari Agricultural University, Junagadh Agricultural University and Rajmata Vijayraje Scindia Agricultural University. - abhi (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's an important find. Do we want to list these as universities? Is there any source that the ICAR approves these institutes and not just lists them? --Muhandes (talk) 06:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ICAR website and DARE website just say role is coordination, may be we need to look more places but anyways agricultural university websites do say that accredited by ICAR see JAU and RVSAU. I suggest we can put these universities back in list. - abhi (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Under what listing? As a separate kind "Agricultural Universities"? --Muhandes (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No idea, ideally UGC should have listed them under state/deemed etc but now that it doesn't I am not sure what we can do. One way would be to list them but mark status uncertain and add a footnote? - abhi (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually not a bad idea. I'll attend to it after completing the rest, which should happen in the next week or two if I have the time. --Muhandes (talk) 08:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems most of these institutions are under Professional Councils listed by the ugc, including ICAR, Rehabilitation Council of India, Distance Education Council, AICTE and others; or under other stakeholders(as per ugc). It seems the councils have the power to recognise degrees, but not the power to grant the official "university" status. I think, logically, that would make these institutions "Autonomous" unless listed by the UGC. We could list them as autonomous and add footnotes for them, listing which council they come under. In case the respective statutory body lists an institute as university(such as the agricultural universities), further clarifications are needed and they shouldn't be listed yet.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your suggestion. If you are saying the professional council does not have the power to grant the official "university" status, than we should not list them as universities. Also, you are suggesting we treat all the professional councils equally, yet they are clearly not the same. ICAR seems to list institutes it refers to as "Agriculture Universities". RCI clearly certifies colleges, not universities (they list affiliating universities), and we agreed below they should not be listed as universities. I'm not sure about DEC, but it seems to recognize "Universities/ Institutions " (lets discuss this on the separate discussion you started below). I propose we continue to discuss relevant councils each in a section for itself, like we started to do, and remove from this list ones we moved elsewhere. --Muhandes (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to suggest we treat all professional councils equally. I merely wanted to state that the resolution of the status of these institutions depends on the powers of the respective councils/stakeholders and having a look at the councils'/stakeholders' rules and regulations might help clear the air on the institutions' status. Having said that
I now quote section 2(f) and section 22(1) of the UGC act.
"“University” means a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes any such institution as may, in consultation with the University concerned, be recoginsed by the Commission in accordance with the regulations made in this behalf under this Act."
"22. (1) The right of conferring or granting degrees shall be exercised only by a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act or an institution deemed to be a University under section 3 or an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees."
As I understand it, institutions such as the abovestated(except agricultural Universities) wouldn't come under 2(f). So I think they're not universities. But, the same logic can be said to be applied to the IITs and IIMs. IITs are autonomous, while the IIMs are societies like National Institute of Foundry and Forge Technology. All these are an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees.(which we list as autonomous)
My point is, if we set aside the reputation of the prestigious institutes, some of the other institutes listed here(those which grant their own degrees) would be the same as the IITs and IIMs, all autonomous institutes. Now, logically, we either put in all of them here; or since they're technically not universities, we split them off to List of Autonomous Educational Institutions in India, leaving here only the ugc listed universities, (and the agricultural universities,if there is consensus on keeping them here).--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I get your point. If I understand correctly, we agree that each council should be judged on its own merit. I agree the UGC act is (very) important. But ultimately, it is what we, the editors, think the list should and should not include. We already had the discussion about IITs/NITs/IIMs/IISERs/IIITs before, you can find some of it in the archive. Consensus was that not including IITs and NITs will leave gaping holes in the list, and IIMs/IISERs/IIITs followed. The main reasoning if I recall correctly, was that although they are not universities by name they are by essence. A lot of weight was given to this list. Of course, we can re-open these discussions. As for other councils, we already have discussions about DEC, ICAR and RCI below. --Muhandes (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we judge each council on its own merit. I've read the archives and, as the article currently states, the IITs, IIMs, IIITs, IISERs, NITs are autonomous institutions. I've nothing against the listing of these in this list. But, if the other institutions here that grant their own degrees aren't listed, it will lead to heated discussions like the one in the serampore section.
I think it all boils down to a technicality, do we consider degree-granting institutions that aren't listed by the ugc eligible for the list?(In other words, are degree-granting institutions that are not universities in legal status, universities/autonomous institutes in essence, and hence eligible for this article?)
I won't ask for re-opening of the original discussions since I won't be active enough over the next few months to take part in them, but if any editors share the article-split viewpoint, then you are free to reopen them.
National Institute of Fashion Technology is listed at Ministry of Textiles (India) to be an autonomous body under it. Now, I think if we list the autonomous bodies under Department of Education here(like IITs,IIMs etc.), we should list this one too, although it seems lower in the organisational hierarchy here.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, do you need reference for these institutes .. these are newly created universities. I can get you the State Govt orders.-
  1. Kerala University of Health Sciences
  2. Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University
  3. Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies
  4. Sree Chitra Thirunal Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology

--naveenpf (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lets wait for the UGC to add them to the list. Also, the list is currently going through FL review, the less updates the better until this is over. --Muhandes (talk) 08:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First three added by UGC, I am now updating the list. Fourth not yet. --Muhandes (talk) 10:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of universities in Tamil Nadu

[edit]

Now, we don't need a separate List of universities in Tamil Nadu, do we? We should delete it.
Agree – ∃ Aditya 7  ¦  08:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no Merge with List of educational institutions in Tamil Nadu and redirect to prevent article from starting again. Also suggest making redirects for all states for List of Colleges in statename and List of Universities in statename to the List of educational institutions in statename articles. That should take care of such state lists once and for all.

P.S.:We also have

--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general I agree, but I suggest a more thorough discussion about article structure at Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in India. --Muhandes (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we still have List of deemed universities?--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same as above - I agree, but I think discussion is better taken to Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in India. --Muhandes (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Started discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education in India#State Lists Format. Have a look and comment.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 09:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uttar Pradesh Technical University

[edit]

University was split into Gautam Buddha Technical University and Mahamaya Technical University w.e.f 1 May 2010. Hence, legally speaking, it does not exist. So, it shouldn't be in this article, but the above stated two should be. See articles for details and refs.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said below, we follow UGC lists and mark discrepancies with footnotes. You can see several other such cases discussed above. --Muhandes (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The latest UGC list now lists Mahamaya Technical University (MTU) with establishment year of 2010 and Uttar Pradesh Technical University (UPTU) with its original establishment date. This is, in fact, very consistent with facts. Note that the website of Gautam Buddha Technical University is the old UPTU website http://www.uptu.ac.in/, and it says "Formerly Uttar Pradesh Technical University". The website of MTU does not. This is very similar to other cases where universities would rather keep an old establishment date so they treat a bifurcation as a rename and a spin-off. I'll add a proper note. --Muhandes (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uttar Pradesh

[edit]
I would say if UGC's List of State Universities (as on 22.06.2011) lists any university as a recognized university then lets leave it there, may be with a footnote that the current status is unclear. - abhi (talk) 08:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then we include it in the list and in the summary? Because pending a decision I removed it from the summary. Also, there might be other cases like this one, do we convey the unclear status in the summary or just the state sections?--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put a star wherever number is disputed and then explain it in a footnote at the end. - abhi (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still with limited Internet access so I wont try to fix this myself, but I totally agree with abhi. We use UGC as the main source, and note any unclear issues as footnotes, preferably just below the table. This applies both to institutes which do not appear to have web presence and to ones with otherwise unclear state. --Muhandes (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stroke down Dr. Shakuntala Mishra University, it is very alive at http://dsmru.up.nic.in/User/Home.htm.--Muhandes (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stroke down Mohammad Ali Jauhar University as the website is also up now at http://www.jauharuniversity.org/index.html--Muhandes (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the Mohammad Ali Jauhar University website. A little exploration shows that academic buildings are listed as planned, not complete or constructed. This may just be a case of a non-updated website. But I don't think a university can be functioning if the buildings are under-construction. The website also doesn't list any temporary campus.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected, the website is indeed a bit on the "under construction" side. But do we have any evidence that the institute is or is not running? --Muhandes (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Manyavar Sri Kanshiram Ji Urdu Arabi-Farsi University had problems in 2010 but seems to be up now. Their website is under construction, but I linked this as it seems like a probably future target. As for UP King George's University of Dental Sciences, indeed sources show it does not exist anymore. I noted it under the table. This should complete handling the four issues you listed. --Muhandes (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rehabilitation Council of India

[edit]

The Rehabilitation Council of India also has a list of RECOGNIZED INSTITUTIONS. I'm not sure how this fits, if at all. --Muhandes (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked a few of them, it seems technically they are all college level institutes, they either award only diplomas or they award other degrees (bachelor/master) in affiliation with other universities. Although I didn't check all of them, many of them do not have websites too.
I must say even after growing up in this country I didn't know a lot about the educational system. It was good learning experience to work on this list. - abhi (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good. It does list some universities it seem, but so far they are all listed by the UGC as well, which hints that they can not accredit universities. --Muhandes (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

It seems that images are being removed from this list. I agree that there were too many of them, but Wikipedia:Featured list criteria recommends having them. We should probably decide which to put and which not to put.

I would suggest putting an image gallery with thumbs of images of the original IITs, and maybe the IIMs (maybe in the lead). Plus, we may include 1 or 2 images per state of a distinguished institution (selection might turn out to be POV-based). I suggest max 3 images for states with large number of institutions.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed them while the page is under construction as I found them distracting while working, and I was planning to restore some when the page is done.
I don't see the point in image galleries for IITs etc, there are such galleries in the relevant articles. I do see the point in several images per state of veteran Central Universities and State Universities. The number should depend on the table length so as not to go past sections. So for Mizoram even one image might be too much, but for Tamil Nadu we can probably have 4-5. --Muhandes (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding images now, about one per 10 institutes, but also depending on availability. For Bihar for example, I couldn't find a single image. Since availability is so low I choose pretty randomly - once I find an image I use it. Feel free to replace them with nicer images. --Muhandes (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Muhandes (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Distance Education Council

[edit]

This seems to be a body formed with IGNOU which is giving recognition to open universities in India. It provides a list of the same here(doc file). It lists the Uttarakhand Open University and all the state open universities along with IGNOU and various private universities. The question is whether the universities recognised by DEC but not listed by UGC, such as uttarakhand open university, should be listed or not?--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same issue as with the agriculture universities above (though not necessarily the same answer). How many other than Uttarakhand Open University are there that are not listed by the UGC?--Muhandes (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following are those not on this article but present in the list here.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

State Universities

Dual Mode Universities

Great job. I stroke out above Mahatma Gandhi Antarrashtriya Hindi Vishwavidyalaya which is now listed in the article. I also stroke out Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research and Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Chennai which I noticed to only have Provisional recognition. If at all, I think only those with Regular/Post Facto recognition should be listed. Could you please explain what "Dual Mode University" is, and why you think Balaji Institute of Modern Management Pune is a mistake? Also, is it your opinion that the remaining institutions should be listed as universities, or not? --Muhandes (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although I haven't found(in fact, haven't looked for yet) the meaning of dual university here; but I would venture a guess that it refers to institutes/universities offering both regular and open(distance learning) courses, as opposed to IGNOU and the state open universities which offer only open(distance learning) courses. For my opinion on these institutes, see Other institutes section above. I now consider Balaji Institute of Modern Management Pune an autonomous institute in line with my views above in the Other institutes section. Since IGNOU and the state open universities were established by central and state legislature, I consider them as universities. Also, any private open universities established by state legislature such as the Global Open University Nagaland should be listed too. But any institutes that aren't central/state/deemed/private universities according to ugc act should be considered as autonomous(like Balaji Institute of Modern Management Pune).
It may be noted from the institutes list that the courses are approved by the "joint committee". This committee seems to be a UGC-AICTE-DEC joint committee as seen here and at other pages of the deemed universities on the ugc website linked from here.
Regarding Uttarakhand Open University, although it was formed by state legislature, making it a state university under the ugc act, it is not listed by the ugc in the state universities list of 13.7.2011. For now, it shouldn't be listed until we find some reference of its ugc approval.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from the types of institutes listed, I don't think we should include them. Except Uttarakhand Open University they seem, in general, not to fit what is usually referred to as a university. --Muhandes (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technical problems

[edit]

It seems like we might have technical problems after all. As of today, the reference list does not show any references to me. Does anyone else have this problem? --Muhandes (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having same problem. Both templates in references section not functioning.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We might have hit some maximum level. I'll start by hiding links to the individual deemed universities list entries, it should remove 100ish refs. --Muhandes (talk) 05:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It worked. I guess we'll have to do without them. We can also remove references to inspection committees reports if the problem returns.--Muhandes (talk) 07:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serampore

[edit]

Senate of Serampore College (University) is not listed in the UGC list of state universities of 22 June 2011. As there is consensus that this list is authoritative and up to date when it comes to State universities, it cannot be listed as one. It is also not listed as either deemed university or private university. The latter list is, again, up to date (1 August 2011) and authoritative. The former is authoritative, but I am not sure it is up to date. Anyway, without a source for either, it cannot be listed. The source provided by another editor, the college act, predates the UGC Act of 1956, so it proves nothing. --Muhandes (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

College listed by UGC here. Listed as college, but status noted as 2(f) and 12(b); 2(f) being the ugc act section defining university.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 09:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See also, College's explanation of its relationship with ugc.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for locating the college list, but I think it actually proves the opposite. If you look at that list, all the colleges in the list have 2(f) and 12(b), and none of them are universities. Being listed in the same list as (very random sample) Silda Chandrasekhar College (affiliated to Vidyasagar University) and Saldiha College (affiliated to University of Burdwan) proves the UGC sees it as a college, not as a university. What the institute explains is that the degrees granted "had not been included among the degrees to be notified by the Commission", or in essence, they don't fall under what the UGC act defines as a university. They even stress that the UGC "certified [that the college] ... is included in the list of Colleges ..." (my emphasis). Bottom line, I don't think it should be included. Unlike other institutes we are still considering (agricultural universities and open universities) which do have a governing authority (ICAR and DEC, respectively), this college does not have an authority except itself saying it is a university. --Muhandes (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Senate of Serampore College (University) is a dual entity - One as India's first University with affiliated Colleges and second as a College whose Arts-Science-Commerce wings are affiliated to the University of Calcutta while its theology wing is affiliated to the Senate of Serampore College (University). Degrees issued by the Senate of Serampore are valid throughout the world. Infact the Senate of Serampore College (University) was the third University under the Danish Empire, the first two being the University of Denmark and the University of Kiel. The Senate of Serampore is a State University within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the UGC Act. Their web site mentions the relationship vis-a-vis the UGC Act. Many do not know the unique character of this University. To a certain extent Universities need not notify any change in issue of degrees. Taking this cue a rank newcomer Muhandes is only showing ignorance on matters related to the University.Pradeep (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Grbpradeep, please be civil and comment on facts, not on people, or leave the discussion.
What you claim is not supported by the sources listed above, and due to the verification policy we cannot accept anything without a reliable source (as you know perfectly well). The UGC does not list it as a state university, and by consensus the UGC is the authoritative source. I explained above what the institute itself says and why even if could be used as a source (and I'm saying it probably can't in this case) it would not actually prove anything. If you have a reliable source showing that the UGC accepts it as a university, please provide it. --Muhandes (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that since it is listed by the ugc as a college, it is a college(I consider it autonomous as in section 22.(1) of ugc act: an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees., for now). But, having said that; I do not see any way for a college to affiliate other colleges. In that sense, it acts like a central/state university. I don't see anything explicitly declaring it as university in either the 1918 act or the royal charter. I know I said that I consider it autonomous(for now), but listing it as such could be considered defamation. So, I think we should wait until we can gather more information regarding this particular case.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agriculture Universities

[edit]

This discussion was split from a discussion above

For 13, I found that the Jawaharlal Nehru Agricultural University was split into 2 and Rajmata Vijayraje Scindia Agricultural University (see this) was formed. Now, it seems this university is accredited only by Indian Council of Agricultural Research (see this) and not by UGC. I'll look into this and update with proper references. - abhi (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So here is something interesting, all agricultural universities come under ICAR (and may or may not be accredited by UGC) and here is the complete list of agricultural universities. It explains 3 of our uncertain universities - Navsari Agricultural University, Junagadh Agricultural University and Rajmata Vijayraje Scindia Agricultural University. - abhi (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's an important find. Do we want to list these as universities? Is there any source that the ICAR approves these institutes and not just lists them? --Muhandes (talk) 06:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ICAR website and DARE website just say role is coordination, may be we need to look more places but anyways agricultural university websites do say that accredited by ICAR see JAU and RVSAU. I suggest we can put these universities back in list. - abhi (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Under what listing? As a separate kind "Agricultural Universities"? --Muhandes (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No idea, ideally UGC should have listed them under state/deemed etc but now that it doesn't I am not sure what we can do. One way would be to list them but mark status uncertain and add a footnote? - abhi (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually not a bad idea. I'll attend to it after completing the rest, which should happen in the next week or two if I have the time. --Muhandes (talk) 08:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting this here to get more opinions about Agriculture Universities. Currently there is provisional consensus that they should be included, but I'd appreciate more opinions. --Muhandes (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Universities not in article but listed by ICAR here:

  • Junagadh Agricultural University & Navsari Agricultural University - formed along with Anand Agricultural University and Sardarkrushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University after 4-way split of Gujarat Agricultural University in 2004, former 2 not listed by UGC, latter 2 are.
  • Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhaya Pashu Chikitsa Vigyan Vishwa Vidhyalaya evam Go Anusandhan Sansthan, mathura, uttar pradesh
  • Universities of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur, Karnataka
  • University of Horticultural Sciences , Bangalkot, Karnataka
  • Andhra Pradesh Horticultural University website
  • Rajmata Vijayraje Sciendia Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya
  • Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences
  • Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Kashmir and Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Jammu - listed here as Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology - single recognition for original university by ugc, whereas icar recognises both separately.
  • Bihar Agriculture College, Sabour - According to website, Bihar Agriculture University - Unclear whether degrees are their own or given by Rajendra Agriculture University, website gives Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Dairy Technology as college under it(see this).

Rajendra Agriculture University states control of Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Dairy Technology and Bihar Veterinary College, Patna shifted to Bihar Agriculture University--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to leave this open for discussion for several more days. If no one objects, I will add these 10-11 institutes. --Muhandes (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Muhandes (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NISER

[edit]

What about NISER? Its similar to IISERs/IISc but it doesn't make much sense to mark its type as NISER as we did for IISERs. I have added it to our list of 'Other Institutes' - abhi (talk) 08:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is more of a question than an opinion. So far we included universities with good sourcing, either in the UGC lists, or those mentioned in the MHRD list. We then added the ICAR list. What source do we have that this institution should be listed? --Muhandes (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, found something on NISER website

In the beginning NISER will seek affiliation with Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), a deemed University within the Department of Atomic Energy, for the award of degrees. At a later stage it will seek UGC approval to get the status of a deemed university for awarding degrees on its own.

So as of now, its not a university but a autonomous institute working in affiliation with HBNI. - abhi (talk) 06:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Currently, the type of each university is a wikilink. It is absurd linking to the same page hundreds of times, also WP:OVERLINK. I think linking to these in the summary itself should be enough and there is no need to link in the list.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 07:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like I was reading WP:REPEATLINK wrong for years now. From some reason I thought it said in tables each row should be wikilinked separately, when it actually says each table should. I'll start working on that, but it's a lot of work, as locations shouldn't be overlinked too. --Muhandes (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Seems like we are done correcting this, thanks for both the suggestion and the help. --Muhandes (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on, what about the specialization column? Currently, some of them are links, others aren't.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to avoid overlinking these as well. Personally, I linked when the specialization was something special like Jainism and did not link much otherwise. "General", "Technology" and "Science" should not be linked. I'm open to suggestions. --Muhandes (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Where specializations are common fields we need not link them just the ones where people might need to know what it means. - abhi (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

timeout in viewing previous versions

[edit]

When i try to view or compare previous versions of article it just times out - is it just happening for me or everyone is facing it? May be the article has grown very big? - abhi (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not just you. Comparing to the last version works, so I do that instead. I believe we are at the very edge of what size can be supported. I do hope these technical problems will not be an obstacle in getting it to FL. I truly hope not, but we may need to reconsider our approach to autonomous institutions, if only for this reason. --Muhandes (talk) 10:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And here I was thinking it was my slow-speed internet. Also, I get a timeout when the article is loading after an edit. I then have to reload the article to view it. But the changes do take place.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 10:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow we have compiled one of the biggest article on Wikipedia :)
But true we need to be careful now on how to maintain it, what were you suggesting about autonomous institutes? - abhi (talk) 05:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take the liberty of assuming abhi was refering to me(in his question). I was suggesting that we move off autonomous institutes to List of Autonomous Educational Institutions in India. See Other institutes section above.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS:As of now, Special:LongPages lists the article as the 208th longest on wikipedia. :) --Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 07:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, basically my question was to both you and Muhandes. Apart from the institutes listed above I am not sure we will be able to move many institutes from this article to List of Autonomous Educational Institutions in India unless you want to move IITs, NITs and IIMs also. Problem is again we will go back to the same discussion we had earlier - whether these institutes are considered equivalent to a university or not. - abhi (talk) 08:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I wasn't clear. There are currently 65 institutes out of 602 which are generally "Autonomous". What I meant was that if I was forced to make the article shorter due to technical reasons, these would be the ones I'd remove. Consensus is that they are equivalent to universities, but not referred to as such in India (based on the 1956 act). I hope such an occasion will not rise, as the article is still marginally manageable. --Muhandes (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If we have to make it shorter we can take the autonomous institutes out. But for now all is good. - abhi (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am having some difficulties with this, but I rather wait for the FL thing to finish before trying more radical measures. --Muhandes (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

University

[edit]

I think the second section should be Universities by State, instead of Universities. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this article has a lot of primary sources, we should change them to secondary ones. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to the first suggestion, and made it so. As for the second suggestion, a proper secondary source for each and every university membership, type, and in most cases establishment year is already provided in the lead. The sources in the tables are mostly primary sources for additional information. At some point we also tried to add a more specific secondary source for each institute but this caused major technical problems, see discussion above. The consensus we achieved is that the current state is better than the alternative and better than having to split the list. --Muhandes (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point is instead of official websites, we should add any other source like Newspapers, books, academic papers, which covers all information described in the list (University, Location, Type, Established, Specialization), just what i have done here. Also i think the Sources tab should be renames to Source, as each column has only one source. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, location, type and established are already referenced by the secondary sources from the lead, and the consensus was that given that we can't have multiple sources due to technical limitations, the best additional source would be a primary source with as much information as possible. I especially preferred primary sources describing the establishment date, as that date can be interpreted in many ways, but ultimately, each institute defines this as they wish, so it is best to let the reader find out for themselves what it means. This is not to say that if you have a very good and reliable secondary source you should not use it (not speaking the language I don't know how reliable you source you added is). In some cases the primary source is simply the website, which does not provide much information. I would, however, recommend leaving the article with only minor changes while it is reviewed for FL. The column name is Sources since it could be more than one in principle, and you are free to use more than one if it is necessary in a specific case. The limitation is technical, on the overall content. --Muhandes (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vaibhav, in case of universities the best secondary sources are UGC and other government published lists. It will be practically not possible to find reliable sources other than these for all of universities. And as Muhandes already mentioned these secondary sources have already been listed in the lead. Please go through the discussion archives and discuss here in case you have any questions or if you plan to do any major editing on this article. - abhi (talk) 06:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let us leave the article like that till it becomes a FA, however as per WP:LISTCOMPANY, if the university article is not adequately sourced, a secondary source has to be added independent of the subject. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Atomic Energy institutes

[edit]

A reviewer at FL raised concerns about including institutes listed by the Department of Atomic Energy (India) (DAE) so I though I'll list there here and discuss them one by one. The list is according to this

--Muhandes (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per the clarification on affiliated institutes that you have added to lead I think we are in good shape. - abhi (talk) 05:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jvb ladnun 1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Jvb ladnun 1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

[edit]

The nomination at FL failed because of lack of support and I would like to move forward. A major issue is that the latest updates to the list cannot be incorporated due to technical issues. I am holding an updated list at my user space but when I try to copy it, we loose the reference list. I tries all I could, and I see no other solution but to go to plan B - list only UGC approved institutes (central, state, deemed and private universities). It might also be easier pass at FL. If no one objects I will make this change in the following days. --Muhandes (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC) The version with only the UGC institutes can be here. --Muhandes (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the technical issues seem to be increasing; so plan B is a good idea. And if we are going to make this a ugc-only list; I think we should do a split instead of simply removing the other institutes. Compiling this list took a lot of effort; and it'd go waste if we simply remove the others. I think it is best if the rest of the institutes are moved to some article like List of autonomous educational institutes in India(which I proposed before). Also, maybe a workaround for the technical issues would be not using the cite templates for some of the refs and instead manually formatting them(Maybe we've hit the transclusion limit?). But of course, this might create issues with the FL nomination.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea, I will create a list for the autonomous institutes as well, and move them both from my user space to the main space simultaneously. As for manually formatting, yes, the problem is the transfusion limit, and maybe it create issues with FL, but more importantly, I don't know how to do it automatically for 600ish citations, and doing it manually is beyond what I am willing to spend on this. If someone wants to give it a shot, be my guest. --Muhandes (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-automatic substitution of cite templates is possible using Special:ExpandTemplates(using just the cite, without the ref tags, as input works). Related discussion links can be found at Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_42#Bot_to_convert_from_citation_templates_to_non-citation_templates. I think it would be best if we:
  1. Split the article
  2. Update the lists(which I think you couldn't do because of the transclusion limit?)
  3. Use Special:ExpandTemplates to format the citations and re-add the 100-ish deleted references--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did the experiment with Special:ExpandTemplates and the result can be seen here. It becomes a 500k file, and while it does solve the technical issue (Post-expand include size went from 2041136 [2048000 is the max] to 76014. By comparison, the split version is the version with only UGC is at 1882540) it becomes impossible to edit it, which for a list which gets updated from time to time is not a solution. Barring any strong objections, and since the matter has stood here for comments for quite some time, I am going to split the list by the end of the week. I might delay it a bit as one of the reviewers requested that we add the |publisher= field to all the citations (all 600 of them) which is very tedious. If someone wants to help before the file is split, the working file is here. I have still not created the other half of the split (List of Autonomous Higher Education Institutes in India), this will be a bit more time. --Muhandes (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, updated, split to List of autonomous higher education institutes in India. --Muhandes (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Professional universities

[edit]

An editor has replaced the type of one university (Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University) from "general" to "professional". When I asked for discussion he commented on my talk page, and I am moving the discussion here so other editors may comment and consensus is achieved:

copied comment

User:Muhandes undid my categorisation of the University from a professional university to a general one, I am changing the reversing the same... because the University was formed under the Indraprastha Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1998 (THE INDRAPRASTHA VISHWAVIDYALAYA ACT, 1998)

The relevant portion of the Act reads:
AN ACT to establish and incorporate an affiliating and teaching University at Delhi to facilitate and promote studies, research and extension work in emerging areas of higher education with focus on professional education, for example engineering, technology, management studies, medicine, pharmacy, nursing, education, law, etc., and also to achieve excellence in these and connected fields and other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. BE it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi in the fortyninth year of the Republic of India as follows... [IPU Act]

Thus one can see that no General Course are taught in the University, if the term 'professional' as in wikipedia articles does not include the nature of IPU, then that article has to be changed giving an Indian reference... and not the Indian University being classified as a General one, especially when the government deems it otherwise. DebashisM (talk) 10:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copied comment end

In general I do not oppose such a change but it will have to be done for all universities. We used the term "general" to refer to any university that has no specific field, and "professional" would apply better to many of them. I therefore oppose this change until it is done to all relevant institutes at once. --Muhandes (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if any other so called professional university refrains from offering B.A., B.Com. or pure science B.Sc. courses ... that's why GGSIPU is a professional university while others are not... and I say that if Wikipedia laws/rules are strict, it cannot change the reality of the situation; on the other hand the rules of Wikipedia has to be dynamic and should change. ~ DebashisM (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it is not the only university that "refrains from offering B.A., B.Com. or pure science B.Sc. courses". Besides, who says that's the criteria for calling a university a professional university? In other countries a professional university will be recognized as such and/or grants special degrees. I don't believe this is the case in India, so we need to establish the rule on when to use the term "professional" rather than "general". Could you try to better formulate the criteria you are proposing? How about Siksha 'O' Anusandhan, does it fit? (just a random one I picked from the list). --Muhandes (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Debashis, Define "Professional University" from an Indian context, and we'll be rid of all confusions. Lynch7 20:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I have defined the same as per my limited knowledge and vocabulary in the Professional University page. Kindly see and confirm. The other institutes on the list seemed correct, but I'll have to cross check them again. DebashisM (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That act is only for that particular university I guess. Nowhere does UGC or any governmental body define "professional university". Lynch7 21:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


True the Act is for the particular University (and at present I am not concerned about others). The UGC does not define technology/ management university either... in fact they could also be brought under the ambit of professional universities. UGC does take into account the role of professional councils before awarding certain degrees, and my definations of Professional University would encompass all such courses. See the following link <http://www.ugc.ac.in/inside/pcouncil.html> for yourself... DebashisM (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


If a University chooses to offer one amongst them like management, medicine, law, technology you allow such a university to be called by that name, but if a university chooses to offer multiple disciplines then you are not ready to call it by the 'plural' word for the same which is 'professional university' and not 'general university' as is being written (especially when they do not offer any general degree like BA, BCom, BSc pass/hons ). DebashisM (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And since it talks of specialization, the term 'General' is a misinformation. If the use of the word 'professional' is declined, then it should have to be substituted with the words 'fashion,law, management, medicine, nursing, pharmacy,technology etc.' So, what's wrong in using the word professional courses? I don't think the world is so dumb... DebashisM (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am truly trying to understand what you are proposing here (without making any comment on the merit of the proposal). Are you proposing that any university offering more than one (or is it more than two?) from "management, medicine, law, technology", but does not offer any of "BA, BCom, BSc pass/hons" should be called "Professional"? --Muhandes (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Its not what I say, its what is commonly understood... If you go to the UGC Website, you'll find that certain courses offered by the Universities in India needs to be approved by other professional bodies. In such a situation, those universities could be termed as 'professional universities', especially when one such university goes on to define it as such in its incorporating legislative document.

From now on, I'd refrain from stating my opinion more than once. Even if I have something material to contribute, I try to disseminate the same. However, I'll waste no time and effort to fight a war (even if justified), because I have no intention of waging a war. DebashisM (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think we will all be very happy if an opinion is not stated more than once. But if we don't understand your opinion, we can't comment or act upon it, which is why we may ask for clarification (not for a repeat of the same opinion). What we are looking for is a clear-cut criteria we can apply without prejudice and with pure neutrality. If I understand correctly your last comment, you say that a university could be termed "professional university" if (all?) the courses offered need to be approved by the 12 professional bodies (15 listed here, but the last two seem like regional bodies rather than professional and I'm not sure the Rehabilitation Council seems to be dealing with other matters as well). I don't think that could work as criteria as is from two reasons. First and foremost, I think the definition covers almost every university, making our specialisation field redundant. Perhaps we want to limit the term "professional" to universities that teach only courses approved by the councils, and at that require at least three of the councils? That way we can have "technology and healthcare", but "technology, healthcare and law" would be "professional". I'm not sure what this would do with "technology, management and pharmacy" all of which fall under AICTE, so this is still quite a sketchy idea, but maybe with a bit more work we can form criteria. My second problem is that there is a legal dispute over what actually requires AICTE approval. For example this page claims "As per law, Universities do not require AICTE approval". I don't see how we can rule on this matter neutrally without taking a position on this dispute, so I'm not sure our criteria is neutral. --Muhandes (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IIITDM

[edit]

Indian Institute of Information Technology, Design and Manufacturing, Jabalpur has been included in this list, whereas Indian Institute of Information Technology Design & Manufacturing Kancheepuram has been left out. Am I missing something here?

Anbu121 (talk me) 13:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Originally this list contained all universities listed by the UGC as well as autonomous institutes like IITs and NITs. Since that was too large to be technically feasible, the list was split to contain only those listed by the UGC. And per Talk:List_of_universities_in_India/Archive_1#Problem_with_IIITs, UGC doesn't seem to list Indian Institute of Information Technology Design & Manufacturing Kancheepuram as a university; and that's probably why it isn't listed here. You'll find it listed in List of autonomous higher education institutes in India. Hope this clarifies things enough.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tech Troubles

[edit]

It seems updating this list has become impossible since we're hitting the technical limit each time updation is tried. And considering that India is still developing, the number of universities is bound to increase over the following years. This means that we're bound to run into further problems. I think there are various possible solutions to this:

Solution 2 and 3 would effectively mean abandoning the current FLC, and would possibly also mean no future chances of FLC for this list either.

Although I like having a common list for universities in India, the sheer size of this page seems too much for a single read-through. So, I would personally prefer if this was split per solution 2.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There might be a solution incoming from the removal of 44 deemed universities. I thought the supreme court was supposed to rule on 22 November but I could not find any details about the ruling. Anyway, I'd like to wait until the second FL attempt is over before doing any major changes. And by the way, it is not too late to comment there. --Muhandes (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the FLC is over, unsuccessfully again, and frankly, I must agree with the decision. There can't be an FL with such a decision pending. I'm going to start a quick survey on our next step. --Muhandes (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Survey

Please post your opinion below.

  • Solution 2. I tried Solution 1 and the resulting page is almost uneditable (example here. Solution 3 already exists and will keep existing. Solution 2 provides a manner to list all universities, though in three articles rather than one. It's better than nothing. Sad as it may be, Wikipedia is incapable of hosting a list of this size, so it's time to move on. --Muhandes (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Solution 2. Will be much more readable and manageable. The number of universities certainly isn't decreasing. Lynch7 15:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Solution 2 As stated above. It will make the lists manageable, give us space to re-add the references we had to delete, and also give us options on the lists' organization (as tables/prose/anything else consensus comes up for).--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, before we perform the split, it will probably be a good idea to fix up all the state lists' Universities sections (only those which are incomplete) with information from this list (just in case we start getting history timeouts again and this content as currently formatted becomes inaccessible). This is also probably the easiest way to partially fix those lists (they're not in a very good shape.)--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like we have a very clear consensus. I'll work on that split next week. --Muhandes (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first shard of the split is ready, feedback more than welcome. I think I have to move them to live all at once from attribution reasons. --Muhandes (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The second shard of the split is ready. --Muhandes (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The third shard of the split is ready. --Muhandes (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mostly done. This is what I intend as replacement of Central University, India, and this will replace the original list. I'll probably deploy them all tomorrow evening. Feedback is, as always, very welcome. --Muhandes (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Muhandes (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead language

[edit]

First issue: The lead currently reads: "India has both private and public universities, many of which are supported by the Government of India and the state governments. Apart from these there are private universities supported by various bodies and societies."

I don't understand how the private universities mentioned in the second sentence are different from those in the first (meaning why they are labelled "Apart from these"). This could be rephrased in a number of different ways, such as:

  • "India has both private and public universities. Some of the former are supported by various bodies and societies, while many of the latter are supported by the Government of India and the state governments." (refer as option 1)

Actually now that I think of it, is it "many of" the public universities which are supported by the governments, or is it all? As far ass I know, a public university is one supported by the government (atleast in the Indian context). I do not know of any university that is public but does not receive any aid from any governmental agencies (meaning that it is self-sufficient financially). If this is correct, it is better stated as:

  • "India has both private and public universities. Public universities are supported by the Government of India and various state governments, and some of the private universities are supported by various bodies and societies." (refer as option 2)

Again, its probably a good question what we mean here by "various bodies and societies" since the act of making a private university itself involves the formation of some kind of trust or something (a body or society). That means that every private university is supported by at least one "body". So the "some" doesn't make sense and the sentences become:

  • "India has both private and public universities. Public universities are supported by the Government of India and various state governments, and private universities are supported by various bodies and societies." (refer as option 3)

Lastly, are private universities only supported by non-governmental bodies or do some of them receive (either regularly or occasionally) governmental aid?

Second issue: The second matter is that the lead states that "Universities in India are recognized by the University Grants Commission" while also stating "The types of universities controlled by the UGC include:". I think the former is a more correct assessment of the UGC-university relationship than the latter, although I may be wrong in this.

Third issue: ""Deemed-to-be-University", is a status of autonomy granted by the Department of Higher Education on the advice of the UGC, under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956."

We've already stated "...draws its power from the University Grants Commission Act, 1956." Do we need to state the act's year again? Seems redundant to me.

Fourth issue: Everything after "though these award diplomas, not degrees" in the lead was right when we were actually listing universities on this page, but now it seems a bit awkward. But since these things do affect the summary and the numbers, maybe we could rephrase it per the new context?

Lastly, yes I could've done some of these changes without bothering people at the talk page (such as the third issue); but since this has been to FLC twice and failed, its better if we discuss even the smallest changes to the lead (since that is practically the entire prose in the article/list). Regards--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think this FL material anymore (the split lists may be), so it should be less sensitive. Regarding the issues raised:
  1. The sentence relates to the global concepts of Public university and Private university, which are now linked prominently. I reworded it a bit to be clearer. I believe some private universities get some support, so I wrote "mostly supported" which seems to be the least committed.
  2. Avoided the problem by removing some redundant words.
  3. We need to state that it comes from Section 3, that's actually the full official title "A Deemed University declared under Section 3 of the UGC Act,1956". We don't need to mention the year again.
  4. Yes, we don't need all of that, I shortened it.

--Muhandes (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article name?

[edit]

I think Lists of universities in India, with 'lists' in the plural form, would be a more accurate title for this article. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Central University of Jammu

[edit]

The Central University of Jammu has been setup quite some time back, with its own Vice Chancellor[1], website[2] and academic session[3] I would be making the changes in the relevant places.    abdars  07:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Bloeria Jammu central varsity vice-chancellor". TwoCircles.net. 05 August 2011. Retrieved 30 April 2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ "Central University of Jammu". Central University of Jammu. Retrieved 30 April 2013.
  3. ^ "Central University Common Entrance Test 2013". Central University of Jammu. Retrieved 30 April 2013.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of universities in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of universities in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_universities_in_India&oldid=1213941207"