Talk:Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology Allahabad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India / Uttar Pradesh / Education (Rated Stub-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Uttar Pradesh (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Education in India workgroup (marked as High-importance).
 
Note icon
This article was last assessed in April 2012.

Clean-up[edit]

The article looks so scattered, can anybody help me to clean-up a mesh of pictures and non-cited content. Some sections like departments serves no purpose. JPMEENA (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNIGUIDE is a good place to start. Regarding the list of departments, discussion in prose would be preferable, but I don't agree it "serves no purpose". Lets say it serves little purpose at this state. --Muhandes (talk) 09:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Placements[edit]

Many companies visit MNNIT for campus placement of students. Some of them are Public Sector Units and others are private sector companies. Notable PSUs are IOCL,NTPC,BHEL,DRDO,CIL,BPCL,HPCL,GAIL etc and private companies are Hero Honda,Maruti Udyog,Bajaj Auto etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.227.27.29 (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You may be true but what are sources of information? I think they doesn't recruit regularly. Furthermore content should be neutral and a wiki-users shouldn't get biased view by incorrect facts. JPMEENA (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Even with sources, this is very highly indiscriminate information, not to speak of it being promotional. Common practice is not to include placement sections at all for India universities. See also discussion here. I removed one sentence about "being visited by top companies" which was so clearly promotional I don't think anyone could argue it, and waiting with the removal of the rest for this discussion to end. --Muhandes (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I would never say "top companies"-(not written by me), I don't identify any as top or low? Secondly, most "Indian Universities" don't offer placements, and most IITs or NITs or engineering colleges offer placements and you can find placement sections there. What I can support you about is that because this particular fact gives a distorted picture of placement scenario so 1-2 lines can be written in addition about general scenario. Since this 'unusual fact is important so it needs to be in light( because other institute pages can't contain this fact). JPMEENA (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
See answer to that in your own talk page. Please don't throw around false information before checking. --Muhandes (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Since the editor does not wish me to copy the entire conversation from his talk page, here's the summary of what I said there, for the benefit of future participating editors: I think this section to be promotional and may be considered boosterism. I think placements sections are also very often borderline indiscriminate information. They are very rarely included, and often removed on site by experienced editors, so it is also against common practice. In answer to the above claim that "most IITs or NITs" have such sections, I went and counted. Of the seven original IITs only two have placements section, and only one of them mentions salaries. Of the eight new IITs none have placements sections. Of the 23 NITs only one (except MNNIT) has placements section. I think these three simply slipped under the radar, or are the exceptions. I wish to hear other editors' input so we can resolve this dispute. --Muhandes (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, in India colleges are often judged based on the kind of companies that visit the campus for recruitment. For instance, it made big news in India when a guy from IIT Delhi was recruited by Facebook and was offered a salary of around 75 Lakh Rupees (US$ 150000) per annum. In this light, I think that placement sections are necessary sections to have. It goes without saying that strong references and a neutral tone are compulsory. I think we shouldn't go by which other article has a placement section, and then make decisions based on that; There isn't any FA in WP:INEI, and we shouldn't really be taking too much suggestions from articles which aren't FAs. Of course, I'm open minded about this and am open to other viewpoints. Lynch7 11:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for my somewhat late response, as I'm on holiday vacation. I asked Mike to comment as I do appreciate the importance of the experienced local view, which I obviously lack. On the other hand you must realise how cheesy and promotional the current section sounds to an outsider. In about a year of close contact with India higher education articles I have yet to see a single neutral placements section, and this one is no different. I guess what I'm saying is that although I understand the local cultural importance of such sections, I fail to see how they can be made not to contradict WP:NPOV, WP:PROMOTION and/or WP:INDISCRIMINATE. See for example the placement section for IIT Kharagpur which is a really good (or bad) example of how not to write from a neutral view. Even the rather modest section for IIT Madras isn't really neutral. I don't think other articles should be the only (or even the major) yardstick, but they do show the common practice, which may hint at the difficulties I mentioned. I don't want to seem like I'm forum shopping, but perhaps this really merits an even wider forum of discussion, maybe at WT:INEI? --Muhandes (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit]

This discussion was moved here from my home page as this seems a more appropriate place. --Muhandes (talk) 08:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You are experienced editor on wikipedia but I would like to request you that please allow logo at the top of the infobox. You visit other top pages of universities or colleges and you would come to know. The best reason is maintaining format across article. Image doesn't mean that that it would be a building image, logo is also image which shows identity of an organization more clearly. JPMEENA (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there are two competing formats. In one the first image is a seal and in the other it is some photograph that represents the institute. My personal preference is with the latter, but indeed the former may be more prevalent. This may or may not be because many institutes do not have a single piece of imagery that represents the institute. If you, as a local, thinks the image of the main building does not represent the institute well, and since this seems to also be a matter of taste, I am not going to object if you replace it with the seal. --Muhandes (talk) 08:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)