Talk:List of universities in India

message: All the basic stuff is  !! --Muhandes (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress 

message: 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)
thread_title: Year of establishment

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

text: Why do we still have List of deemed universities?--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[List of universities in Tamil Nadu]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Uttar Pradesh Technical University]] 

message: *Uttar Pradesh Urdu Arabi Farsi University - Listed by UGC as a state university. IGNOU names it as Manyavar Sri Kanshiram Ji Urdu Arabi-Farsi University. The university does not seem to have a website.
*Dr. Shakuntala Mishra Uttar Pradesh Viklang Vishwavidyalaya - Also seems to have no website. Is mentioned at rehabcouncil.nic.in
*Mohammad Ali Jauhar University - Has an under-construction website. Google search shows no sign whether university is active.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 06:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Uttar Pradesh 

message: 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)
replies: text: Having same problem. Both templates in references section not functioning.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Technical problems 

message: : 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Under what listing? As a separate kind "Agricultural Universities"? --Muhandes (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:   --Muhandes (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agriculture Universities 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:   Seems like we are done correcting this, thanks for both the suggestion and the help. --Muhandes (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Wikilinks 

message: I think the second section should be Universities by State, instead of Universities. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  University 

message: 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
* Tata Institute of Fundamental Research - listed as deemed
* Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics - UGC lists it under Homi Bhabha National Institute which is listed as deemed
* Tata Memorial Centre - UGC lists it under Homi Bhabha National Institute which is listed as deemed
* Harish-Chandra Research Institute - UGC lists it under Homi Bhabha National Institute which is listed as deemed
* Institute of Physics - UGC lists it under Homi Bhabha National Institute which is listed as deemed
* National Institute of Science Education and Research - discussed above, affiliated to Homi Bhabha National Institute
* Institute of Mathematical Sciences - UGC lists it under Homi Bhabha National Institute which is listed as deemed
* Institute of Plasma Research - UGC lists it under Homi Bhabha National Institute which is listed as deemed
* Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences - per this does not seem to be an educational institute
* National Board for Higher Mathematics - not an educational institute
* Atomic Energy Education Society - up to junior school
* Homi Bhabha National Institute - listed as deemed
* Bhabha Atomic Research Centre - UGC lists it under Homi Bhabha National Institute which is listed as deemed
* Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research - UGC lists it under Homi Bhabha National Institute which is listed as deemed
* Raja Ramanna Centre for Advanced Technology - UGCS lists is as "Centre for Advanced Technology" under Homi Bhabha National Institute which is listed as deemed
* Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre - UGC lists it under Homi Bhabha National Institute which is listed as deemed
* Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research - not an educational institute
--Muhandes (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Department of Atomic Energy institutes 

message: An image used in this article, , 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)
thread_title: File:Jvb ladnun 1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: 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: 
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Debashis, Define "Professional University" from an Indian context, and we'll be rid of all confusions. Lynch7 20:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Professional universities 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  IIITDM 

message: 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 1: Use Special:ExpandTemplates for all references. This should take care of the ref limit problems.
*Solution 2: Split the article yet again into List of central universities in India, List of state universities in India, List of private universities in India, and List of deemed universities in India (which already exists as List of deemed universities); and keep a summary of those lists in this article.
*Solution 3: Split this article and move the university lists to the state-wise lists (which already contain these lists)
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: The second shard of the split is ready. --Muhandes (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

text: The third shard of the split is ready. --Muhandes (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:   --Muhandes (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tech Troubles 

message: 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)
replies: text: Actually, I don't think this FL material anymore (the split lists may be), so it should be less sensitive. Regarding the issues raised:
# 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.
# Avoided the problem by removing some redundant words.
# 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.
# Yes, we don't need all of that, I shortened it.
--Muhandes (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead language 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article name? 

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

message: 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:
*Added  tag to http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/ugc_act.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303143139/http://mhrd.gov.in/central_univ_eng to http://mhrd.gov.in/central_univ_eng
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101129070530/http://www.ugc.ac.in/inside/deemeduniv.html to http://www.ugc.ac.in/inside/deemeduniv.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ugc.ac.in/inside/privateunivnotice.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110818145202/http://www.icar.org.in/en/universities.htm to http://www.icar.org.in/en/universities.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified