Talk:University of Mumbai

message: :Image:University Of Mumbai.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:UniversityOfMumbai.png

message: this is really bad that both DU and this article are way behind in quality if compared with University of Calcutta. 
--Onef9day Talk! 10:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Why This is NOT A GOOD ARTICLE?

message: It needs alphabetization.Dogru144 (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Alumni section problems

message: In the previous few years it has seen 104% increase in undergraduates, 112% increase in post-graduate students and 147% increase in distance education students. There is 156% increase in the number of research papers published in international journals. Twelve department/ sections are recognized under national programmes such as SAP, CAS, DRS, DSA, COSIST, FIST. More than 80 teachers are on professional bodies. Eighteen national/ international awards were won by teachers in the last five years. Every year about 20 teachers visit abroad for academic activities. Recently more than 10 self-supporting courses have been started by the university.
Interesting set of stats here (last para of the introduction). They need references and also need to be elaborated. Rohini (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Just discovered this is a copyright violation and a use of the primary source: http://www.mu.ac.in/History.html Rohini (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics 

message: A lot of the content on this page has been plagiarised from the primary source, i.e., the official website of Mumbai University.
For example, the "History" section has been copied from http://www.mu.ac.in/History.html. I have tried to copy edit this as much as possible, but clearly more needs to be done. The article relies heavily on the primary source, which is the university website. We need more secondary and reliable sources. Rohini (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't there sources from Newspapers? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violations 

message: The article introduction claims that the University of Mumbai is the "largest university in the world by number of graduates". I highly doubt this, and would like to see a valid reference or citation supporting such a claim. if unsupported, this sentence should be removed. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Largest university in the world, by no. of graduates"? 

message: I suggest the sections on Departments, Vice Chancellors and "Notable Alumni" be moved to separate lists in the interest of brevity. Also, each of them needs reliable, third-party citations. -- Rohini (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well worth considering as it does not present well at the moment. I expect there are guidelines or Featured Articles to guide one as to which method of improvement would be best. Alumni, faculty and staff can work well as text rather than a list (see University of London but they need to be split into subject rather than date or A>Z. Might it be worth retaining a few 'super notables' in text if the decision is made to hive off a list of mere notables such as prime ministers or Nobel laureates? VCs work well by date; I am surprised some VCs do not yet have articles and some might argue they should be removed from the list; I would not agree in this instance. Departments is difficult as it all too easily reads as a brochure. SovalValtos (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  For VCs that do not have articles, citations can be used to retain them in the list. I have redlinked the VCs names so that new articles may be created. I agree with retaining the names of exceptionally notable staff and alumni. As for names of departments, I suggest either removing the department section entirely (as this information is easily available at the primary source) or moving it to a list. The departments section doesn't add encyclopaedic value to the article. -- Rohini (talk) 07:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I will divide Notable alumni into sections sorted A>Z as whatever is decided on the section's fate it will be easier to handle.SovalValtos (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am helping with this. Also trying to arrange the names within A>Z alphabetically. -- Rohini (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

text: I have now done a first sort. Some checking of my work for mistakes would be appreciated. There is room for refinement of the subsections. I have had enough for now SovalValtos (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: For the faculties section would it be worth considering using those collapsible devices (I am sorry I do not know their name) to hide the lists of departments unless they were wanted to be seen? SovalValtos (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those are called collapsible/ expandable menus. Definitely doable. -- Rohini (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh dear! I thought I was being helpful in sorting and it turns out that in my ignorance I was sorting on the wrong name. Sorry for the trouble caused. Sometimes there is a benefit from an editor coming from a different culture, but not this time. I look forward to seeing how Edward Hamilton Aitken will be sorted though. Overall I think it is looking better and I approve of your renaming of the sub-sections. I think there is room for improvement at the head giving some overview of the alumni in text, but that would need a source. Collapsible/ expandable menus could be used here for the sections; my preference is not. SovalValtos (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate list for departments, alumni & vice chancellors, with citations 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion