Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of universities in India/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 14:20, 29 January 2012.

List of universities in India

 * Nominator(s): Muhandes (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think the subject is important, and I believe the list meets all the criteria. A previous nomination stretched too long and was closed due to lack of support, though concerns were mostly addressed.

Since the last nomination, the list has gone through one major change. Mostly due technical problems, the list had to be split. Following consensus, this was performed by applying a stricter inclusion criteria, namely including only institutes which are recognized by the UGC as universities. The distinction is explained at length at the lead. This also has the benefit of a clearer inclusion criteria which does not require consensus for each and every additional institute.

For the sake of transparancy I should mention that I invites all the editors who commented on the previous nomination to comment again. As all editors and not just the supporting ones were invited, this should be a problem. Muhandes (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

– HonorTheKing (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - I also commented on the last nomination, I believe it meets the criteria.
 * Support, but one problem I've noticed is that the tables without pictures are wider than the tables with pictures. I think the tables need to be he same width regardless of whether it has a picture or not. Mattg82 (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On my browser they are exactly the same width, except when I make the window too small for the entire table width to be displayed, in which case only the tables with images are wrapped around. This seems like the desired hard coded behavior. Was this what you were referring to, or is it some other browser specific issue? --Muhandes (talk) 07:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The tables are using percentages for column widths which add upto 100% (ie the whole width of the screen). If a picture is added to the side of the table, the total width available becomes smaller and hence the table is narrower. However tables without images make use of complete width available. I hope I am making sense here lol.


 * TBH this is a minor cosmetic issue, it shouldn't stop the list from being an FL. Mattg82 (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, I applied the suggestion you made and it seems to work. Cheers! --Muhandes (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * With regards to the University Specialization, have you differentiated between "Engineering" and "Technology"? Because I see many variants; for some, its just "Engineering", for some, its just "Technology", and for some, its both. Can you clarify? Thanks,  Lynch 7  17:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I replaced all with technology which seems like a broader term. --Muhandes (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, Indian Institute of Science also offers Technology courses as well, not just science. (I go to the department every week :P ) Other than that, great work Muhandes, you've perfected a very important and useful article.  Lynch 7  18:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Added. --Muhandes (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

So if someone treats an article as his own turf, writes most of the content himself, without consulting or accepting genuine edits, then it can never become a good article (by whatever name called). Such a person may be well educated, and a master in Wikipedia edits... but that does not means others are minnows without a voice... I found the above mistake, and with the same attitude of the key contributor to the page, may be there are a lot more (one has to look at the past reversals made by the editor to find the true character of the article). I would say that it has a biased POV. DebashisM (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Of course.  Lynch 7  13:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reject While GGSIPU is a Professional University, offering practically no general degrees like BA, BCom, BSc; Muhandes has reverted the required edit twice, because according to him, the university does not qualify to be called professional university. I have shown him the Delhi Govt. Act under which it was formed, the University website, the courses offered but he seems not to be satisfied. On the other hand, he showed me the Wikipedia entry of Professional University which is redirected to Vocational university a simple article without much content.
 * Debashis, when there is no clear distinction (in the Indian context) regarding what is called as a professional university, and what is not, we must be careful in assigning names. Unless the Delhi Govt. order/UGC notification spells it explicitly as a professional university, then we shouldn't really classify it as such, since the term Professional University is not well defined from a worldwide (and Indian) view.  Lynch 7  19:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All I did was ask for discussion, see here. I did not write the content "without consulting or accepting genuine edits". On the contrary, the list was created by members of WP:INEI and follows consensus reached over the months by said members, as the talk page shows. As MikeLynch commented above, the term you proposed is unclear, so discussing it is due. Similarly, MikeLynch raised an issue above where "Technology" and "Engineering" isn't clear, which was addressed. Anyway, if you think asking for discussion is a reason for rejecting the list, I hope whoever closes this takes this into consideration. --Muhandes (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 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... [Act]


 * In fact the university website, www.ipu.ac.in, as well as the Wikipedia entry of GGSIPU categorizes it as a professional university. If you have problems with the entry then change it the University page too. The concept of NPOV (or a misunderstanding of the same) cannot be tolerated, especially if it portrays the entity in a different light (which may also be considered malicious and legal actions may be initiated). Free encyclopedia does not only mean 'free for access' but 'freedom of speech (and writing too)' however it does not give the freedom or right to anything in the name of NPOV. DebashisM (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Plus the categories in the list is not 'blue worded' that links to any Wikipedia article, but is as understood commonly. Any user, at least net savvy users in India, would automatically know that the University offers Professional Courses and no other. How this simple fact is being ignored by someone sitting in Israel is hard to understand. DebashisM (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You may or may not be correct, and the place to discuss the issue is the article's talk page. I repeat that you are asking to reject the list because another editor asked for discussion of a change you proposed. --Muhandes (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, please discuss (with a cooler head). Nothing ever came of being hot headed and judgmental.  Lynch 7  20:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I ask for a 'reject' because I know that the present list has atleast one inaccuracy (which I have pointed out with factual details). Despite my correcting the error, the editor chose to twice revert the correct detail and called for a discussion, which has no participant than the editor and me. So, if the editor has called for discussion then how can the article be rated before the matter is settled in the discussion. Moreover, I have given factual proof of my assertion, but it is Muhandes who has failed to show any basis for categorizing it as it is at present. DebashisM (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 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  for yourself...DebashisM (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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) 22:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * And again, all we asked for is that this issue be discussed before changing the page. And you seem to think asking for discussion is reason for rejecting the list. --Muhandes (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Debashish's opposition seems a case of WP:POINT because according to him/her, the said list is not a Perfect Article.
 * List uses specialization "Legal" for one university whereas others are using "Law". Please standardise.
 * Standardized on Legal, mainly since the article link is handy. --Muhandes (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For the universities offering language specializations, some list them as "xyz language" while others are simply "xyz". Again, standardise.
 * Standardized on "xyz" except for Dravidian languages which I think would require the qualifier since "Dravidian" does not sound well. --Muhandes (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Same for health vs health sciences, distance learning vs distance education.
 * Standardized on Healthcare and Distance education. --Muhandes (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Replace & with "and" in specializations.
 * Done --Muhandes (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Other than that, its in good shape for an FL I think.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All resolved, thanks for the comments. --Muhandes (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 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).... DebashisM (talk) 08:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Taken literally, there is no violation of criterion 6. However, the recent split, the content dispute above, and this comment lead me to doubt the wisdom in promoting the article at this time.  Good raise  03:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.