Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wifione (talk | contribs) at 03:07, 31 December 2009 (→Requested change: added signature). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Disambiguation

I request editors to create pages for IndianOil Institute of Petroleum Management the nation's largest petroleum management government run institute. Indian Institute of Port Management, a similar institute run by government for management of ports Indian Institute of Plantation Management, and for plantation. I believe these institutions define industrial and service sector growth for India, and it's imperative we have wiki pages defining these institutions as they're being confused with The Indian Institute of Planning and Management. Add to the list above Indian Institute of Personnel Management and Indian Institute of Project Management Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 06:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

German Wiki??

There's some anon ip which has placed a German wikipedia project page on the current disambig page. Is that allowed? (I mean, can the English wikipedia project have links to German wikipedia project links?) Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 03:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think in this case we can just safely delete the link, since it's not to a real article. If you think about it, would a German article have a title in English? I'm not sure of the policy, but generally I'd say no, we should link just to the English page, with links to other languages in the sidebar like normal. This is clearly just vandalism though. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Perfect. Was thinking on the same lines. Thanks Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Question on what is alphabetical

I have two queries if editors are interested in answering:

• Should IndianOil Institute of Petroleum Management be considered above the other Indian Institutes because it has "IndianOil" as its leading name?
• Should The Indian Institute of Planning and Management be considered with "The" in its name or without "The"?

Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 03:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say that IndianOil comes after anything with "Indian" followed by a space. Usually "The" should be ignored, so I think where you have it now is correct. Those are the rules I learned working in an (American) public library many years ago. That's the typical method for American English--not sure if other areas use other rules. In trying to find a Misplaced Pages rule for alphabetizing, I discovered that disambiguation pages don't actually need to be alphabetized. I think in this case it makes sense, but it's good to know there are actual style guidelines for organization. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I feel Indianoil should be on the top. Let the India's largest coporation honor the first position and will be alphabetically correct too. Also IIPM School of Management should come last as its starts with Acronym.--Suraj845 (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Page protected

I have protected this page from editing till the current disputes regarding the wording of entry descriptions are resolved through discussion or through dispute resolution. Abecedare (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wording dispute

I'll get the discussion started. I agree with Makrandjoshi that since there is a dispute that both positions should be included for balance. The phrase "unaccredited management institution" seems to cover both sides. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is my point. There is a wording dispute. It is unaccredited (has been in news for accreditation), and is not, IMHO, a "management" institute because it does not offer MBA or BBA courses. So to cover both sides, I put in "unaccredited" AND "management institute". Makrandjoshi (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

the wordings are not right. i'd give that the insti's courses are unacredited than the insti. And in wikiped its not what u think but what u can support using refernces ------- & there r many references dat mention iipm is a b-school

so it shd be b-school whos courses were unaccredited by acite ugc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.108.118 (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I know I will be hounded again by Makrand but I am taking the links provided here to show IIPM is referred as a b-school. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 06:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC) I agree it is a b-school and I have to second the opinion that IIPM's courses are unaccredited rather than IIPM itself unless other editors can show me verifiable sources that say otherwise. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 06:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I also wish to add that accreditation is a regular phenomenon, that is there is no permanent accreditation. So the sources which provide information about the institute being unaccredited should give current or more recent notices and not past notices.Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 06:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Accreditation isn't permanent, but it is generally stable and requires action be taken (by the accrediting body and the institute) for it to change. If they were unaccredited a few years ago, then they are still unaccredited unless they have received accreditation since then. Do you have a source that says they are now accredited? If not, they are still unaccredited. IIPM has never sought accreditation; they state that quite clearly themselves. They would have to take the action of seeking accreditation (and have it granted) to no longer be unaccredited. The archived sources are perfectly fine, as has been explained to you elsewhere. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) Let's try to get this discussion going again to see if we can reach consensus. Wifione, since you haven't provided a source saying that it's accredited, or even that its courses are unaccredited rather than the institute, can you accept saying "unaccredited" here, consistent with the main article? Makrandjoshi has already agreed to the compromise of "management institute," so I think we have consensus on that part of the wording. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Please add cross link

International institutes on political management I don't see any issues on building consensus on this issue as there might be no opposition. Adding the template in adv. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

 Not done As far as I can tell, International institutes on political management is simply a descriptive term used on a wikipedia disambiguation page, and there is no indication that such institutes are individually or collectively known by the IIPM acronym. We should not be inventing neologisms or acronyms on wikipedia. If you have sources that say otherwise, that can be discussed and consensus established. Abecedare (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Not all the entities listed go by IIPM

A lot of the entities listed here do not go by 'IIPM'. They should be removed. Indian Institute of Personnel Management is actually called NIPM as all the cites on that page indicate. Nor is there any place where I see Indian Institute of Project Management refered to as IIPM. Furthermore, IIPMSoM is called, well, IIPMSoM, so does not belong on the disambig page for IIPM. Nor do IIPMM or IPM belong here. Makrandjoshi (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

IIPM is a commonly used acronym for these institutes. So should stay.

Indian Institute of Personnel Management's importance is well recognised in India. It is well quoted "Institute%20of%20Personnel%20Management"&offset=15&max=136. You could create a new page for NIIPM or NIPM which you quote and then link the Indian institute of Personnel Management page to NIPM mentioning that the two entities merged later on.

Indian institute of Project Management has existed for a long time are just random links not verified. But you could develop the related page on project management on wikipedia rather than requesting it to be taken out of this disambig page.

If IIPM Som should not be here because it is IIPM SoM, then The Indian institute of Planning and Management would also unfortunately become TIIPM and therefore would not stay here. IIPM is about common usage. IIPM SoM is actually IIPM School of Management. The SoM is given only for simpifying another acronym (aka Chicago University GSB, Columbia GSB, Yale SoM). So it should stay.

I'm ok with IPM and IIPMM being removed but only think as a disambig page it might be relevant. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 06:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wifione, of your six sources for the Indian Institute of Personnel Management, only two of those show the abbreviation IIPM. The other four don't use any abbreviation at all. What was their relevance to this discussion? You don't need to prove that the organization exists; nobody's contesting that. Makrandjoshi was questioning whether it's abbreviated this way. The two relevant sources would have been sufficient. You don't need to bombard us with peripherally related sources. Making us filter through things that don't actually support your arguments doesn't really help your case.

For the Indian Institute of Project Management, you provided a source that shows that the organization exists, but not whether IIPM is used as an abbreviation. Your second source, which is a copy of Misplaced Pages content, is not a reliable source. Do you have a source which shows that IIPM is an abbreviation for the Indian Institute of Project Management?

As for the others, it's really a question of whether we think someone might type "iipm" in the search box when they are looking for the other items. Honestly, I can see that someone might mistype IIPM when they mean IIPMM. I don't think it hurts anything to include those in this disambiguation page, as it's not too big. At some future point, if this was a much larger page, I might argue that things would need to be trimmed down. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 10:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Indian institute of production management

The Indian Institute of Production Management is not a government institution, as mentioned in this disambiguation link, but an institution set up with active support from the government of orissa. Can we change the title given to the institute as follows:

• Indian Institute of Production Management (IIPM), an educational institution based in Kansbahal, near Rourkela, Orissa, India.

▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 07:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I see from the source that this should be the Indian Institute for Production Management, not of--do you want to take care of renaming that article since you created it? Since education is the third thing listed on that source page, I'm not sure it makes sense to emphasize that without mentioning the training and consulting. What about this as a summary instead? "Indian Institute for Production Management (IIPM), a training, consulting, and educational institution based in Kansbahal, near Rourkela, Orissa, India." WeisheitSuchen (talk) 08:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm ok with the new title you propose. I'll rename the article tomorrow as I'm done for the day right now. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 11:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Dear Administrators, Can the new summary for the indian institute of production management be changed to the following:

• "Indian Institute for Production Management (IIPM), a training, consulting, and educational institution based in Kansbahal, near Rourkela, Orissa, India."
  ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 11:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Note that I have removed the wikilinks from your suggestion, since the entries are supposed to be the onlu wikilinked items on an disambiguation page. Other cleanup is also required on this page, but I'll desist from doing so while the page is protected. Any progress on the above dispute ? Abecedare (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

That's alright. You could perhaps do the cleanup you want to do. I'm sure it'll be alright, unless other editors have issues (I don't think they'll have, though). Wrt to the dispute, it is not resolved. I still say that the institute is not the one unrecognised or unaccredited, but its courses - although I've kind of avoided that discussion to get along with other points.▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 06:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Wifione, you've mentioned this point about the courses being accredited rather than the institute repeatedly. Were you planning to provide a source or two to counter the ones I've provided here? So far your rationale has been that your understanding is this way based on previous discussions, but I haven't seen anything to back you up yet. Avoiding discussion isn't going to help us resolve the dispute. If you want to take this back to the main article to discuss there, that would be fine; it perhaps belongs there anyway. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 10:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

WS, clearly, you've not read my arguments. All the links you keep giving are pre-court case links. In the court ruling, the court had asked ugc to remove IIPM's name from the unauthorised (fake) university list (which it did, ref main article). Therefore even the archived links you show are of no use as you need to give current dated post court case references. If you do have such sources, go ahead and show them. You could do that on the main article too. If you don't, do tell arguments in your favour.▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 05:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You could also give any link you find now on the aicte or ugc site which refers to your pov. That'll help in sealing your argument beyond further discussion ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 05:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

So I need to find numerous sources, but you don't have to find a single one to back up your opinion? You really think that's the way to argue this? Fine, I'll play it that way--I have the sources to back up my statements. The court case says they can't call it a fake university, but that doesn't suddenly make it accredited. If you want to say it's accredited, then bring out your source that says someone has accredited their programs. I don't have to prove the negative; you have to prove the positive. If you can't provide a source that says they are accredited, then they are unaccredited. There's only two choices: accredited or unaccredited. There's no limbo in between where they aren't accredited but no one can say they're unaccredited as you're claiming. But, since you want a current source, here's the list of AICTE accredited institutions. Note that IIPM isn't listed. Here's the equivalent list from UGC. Again, IIPM isn't listed as a recognized institute. Therefore, they are unaccredited according to the current lists. I don't need a source that specifically lists them as fake; I just need to show that they are missing from the lists of accredited institutes. Now that I've provided links from the current AICTE and UGC sites, I assume you'll drop the argument as you said.

As for whether it's the institute or the courses accredited, for which I've provided multiple sources and you've provided zero, here's a few more. AICTE refers to "Approved Institutes" in their list of accredited schools. Note that AICTE approves the institute, never mentioning the courses, directly contradicting your repeated statements to the contrary. The UGC refers to recognizing colleges: "eligible colleges...5449 colleges have been declared eligible to receive central assistance...565 colleges are recognized...Regulations for recognition of colleges." Note that the word "courses" never appears there. Do you have any support for your claim that these organizations accredit courses rather than institutes, contradicting their own websites? If you have no sources to support the claim, please stop making the argument. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• WS, Your AICTE source is a source detailing which new technical institutions are allowed to start rather than of the accredited technical institutions (you'll realise that the MBA link within the source you provided has no MBA institute's name. Therefore, the link is obviously misread by you. Btw, the website is under construction). A common quick test could be to check out whether IIM Ahmedabad, India's top ranked institute, is there. It's not.
• Your UGC link is for those colleges that are eligible for funding. (A good test again would be to check IIM Ahmedabad's name). It's written out there "The University Grants Commission (UGC) provides financial assistance to eligible colleges which are included under Section 2(f) and declared fit to receive central assistance (UGC grant) under Section 12 (B) of UGC Act, 1956".
• This point could be helpful to us. If you see the AICTE Act on AICTE's website, you'll realise AICTE has the authority to approve new technical institutions and also to accredit current programmes. IIPM is not a new technical institution. But obviously it one time was. The act was started much after IIPM was set up. Therefore IIPM was not a new institution then perhaps. Still, it could have applied for accreditation. It didn't. But then, these are our arguments.
• I still have a consensus line for you if you're open to it "IIPM is a business school based in New Delhi, India, whose certificate programmes are not accredited." Do tell me what you think?▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 12:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You provided no source which backs up your claim that AICTE doesn't accredit schools and only programs, so your sentence doesn't tell the whole story and isn't supported by facts. How about "IIPM is a business school based in New Delhi, India, which is not accredited by AICTE or UGC"? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

WS, not an issue with me for under good faith, though I don't agree with it. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 06:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled with this either, but it's a compromise I can live with. I doubt we would ever get to a consensus that made us both happy, but I'm glad we found one that we can both accept.

Abecedare, I believe this was the dispute that led to the full protection. Now that we've come to an agreement on this dispute, I think the protection could be lifted. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested change

{{editprotected}}

Dear Administrators, can the line on The Indian Institute of Planning and Management be changed to the following?

"The Indian Institute of Planning and Management is a business school headquartered in New Delhi, India, which is not accredited by AICTE."

Thanks, ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 06:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ehm, yikes this page is a problem. Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages). Valuation of topics should not be done on this page. Link and define. Here you are adding statements, that within all reason require sourcing and referencing, and thus belong in the article. Declined for now. I note btw, that this addition is not the only that would have this problem, there are a few problems already on the page. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I did some cleanup, I propose we start with this: Talk:IIPM/sandbox. Please make suggestions, be civil etc. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

DJ, the changes you've made seem alright to me. But would suggest waiting for other users for at least three to four days, this being the eve.▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 03:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)