Talk:Sources/Intergalactic medium/Archive 1

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Deletion Request from Anonymous User[edit source]

{{delete|This entire page is just a random collection of quotes from research papers, grouped only by keywords in a completely nonsensical fashion. Many of the quotes have nothing to do with the subjects they're in, there is no coherent framework to the information given, and anything that isn't a direct quote is flat out wrong or irrelevant. I hate to remove one of the few pages about the IGM, but this page is actually worse than nothing at all. <s>If this wasn't spambot generated then somewhat went to a huge amount of work to... look exactly like a spambot.</s>}} From: [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.121.236.169 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 20 April 2015‎ (UTC)

This post ultimately led to the discussion that follows

Page protection[edit source]

I'm very concerned that this edit was not only removed but that page protection was inappropriately used to prevent discussion of the content. This is not a valid use of page protection. I had not seen this page before until I was reviewing overzealous use of protection and discovered this edit in the history. There are legitimate questions that the IP raises about the educational objectives of this page. I would usually treat page blanking as vandalism, but this was a very selective removal of content with a clear and coherent reason why the material was removed. The page contains no explanation of how the various sections are related to the page topic. A reader unfamiliar with the intergalactic medium would likely find this resource more confusing than educational. Please discuss. --mikeu talk 11:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the edit history which is what alerted me to the problematic actions. (there's no need to cross-post details of the history which can be easily accessed by a tab, it just clutters the page) While the ip may have used the wrong template and wording at the end that was inappropriate there is legitimate concern expressed about the educational content. Rather than address this by improving the page or discussing (as the template wording says should be done before the template is removed) you protected a page for which you are the primary author which is an action that prevents others from participating in the improvement of the resource. The buttons like protection shouldn't be used in cases where it could stifle a discussion about educational objectives. For the next nine months there were restrictions on editing this page while you and others only made trivial edits like categorization.

You could have left a warning on the ip talk page about civility. You could have also quoted some of the concerns on the talk page or changed the template to deletion review. There were several ways this could have been handled. I'm not concerned about the percentage of pages that you've protected (that number should be extremely low as the vandalism on our site is very rare) but there needs to be a legitimate reason given in the logs when taking action. A brief semi-protect is preferable to use of indef. But most important, you should avoid the appearance of using the tools to gain an advantage in a content dispute and Assume Good Faith when someone expresses concern about a resource. This is what educators refer to as a w:teachable moment. It would have been an opportunity to engage with a learner to explain what the page is about and get feedback on how to improve the clarity of the page.

When one custodian takes the time to restore material to the talk page you should take the time to learn why, as there is very likely a reason. You saw that I contributed to the talk page, but immediately deleted without discussion before I could even add a note. I felt that it was inappropriate for me to replace a disputed speedy on the main page, and wanted to discuss this on the talk page and hear your thoughts first. Please be more cautious in using the tools like protection and deletion, esp. when you are an involved editor in a content dispute. There is not such a great urgency to use the tools when merely communicating will suffice. I'll post in another edit my thoughts about the page content itself, but probably won't have time tonight. --mikeu talk 02:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reset the discussion[edit source]

The aforementioned confusion can be traced back to an IP "speedy delete" that probably should had been a "dr" (deletion request) on the main page. Let me now ask the questions in a specific order:

  1. Does Intergalactic medium contain unnecessary information that detracts from the article? If not, we can remove {{dr}}. Otherwise, we go to the next question:
  2. If the page does contain unnecessary and distracting information, should the page be edited, deleted, or moved?

Regarding the first question, I briefly looked at the page and found Intergalactic_medium#Control_groups and a subsequent section that detracts from the article, IMHO. Personally, I prefer to completely rewrite a passage or article as if from the first time, instead of correcting what I don't like. Also, I prefer not to evaluate or edit long and comprehensive articles like this one.

You might consider moving this article to a subpage and using the namespace Intergalactic medium as a node that encourages parallel articles, and also points to resources on Wikiversity, Wikibooks, and Wikipedia. I would prefer not doing the chore, but if you ask me to, I will.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for resetting this discussion! Just FYI, from what I've been reading in the astronomical literature, my next change is to put Intergalactic medium as a sub-page of astronomy as Astronomy/Intergalactics with the usual format Intergalactic medium. This would also be done to Interstellar medium and Interplanetary medium. I would also like to review what has been happening to this resource. Then, I will address any science concerns. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the section below is an abridged history of the resource page and some comments from my talk page at the end. Here are the salient points:
  1. At 05:47, 20 April 2015‎ the IP 75.121.236.169 deleted without discussion more than 10 kB of text. This is not what someone does whose interested in discussion.
  2. At At 10:46, 31 January 2016‎ Mu301: "(<strikeout> per WV:CIVIL)". I agree that the comment was not civil. This also indicates an IP that should have been blocked for not being civil. Rather than block the IP since other users may contribute from it, I protected the page.
  3. "Your reason for deleting the talk page is wholly inaccurate and very inappropriate.[2] Please discuss. --mikeu talk 11:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)", from my talk page. The deletion of the talk page was appropriate. I checked the history and was puzzled why the entry by the IP did not show up.[reply]
  4. "Actually, the only reason I deleted it was that appeared to be what the request from the IP was for. The description appeared to be referring to the resource but the deletion template was on the talk page. It was peculiar. The history only showed you as the contributor and not the IP. I'm guessing since I just had to log in myself and it's the end of the month that you were the IP. Usually, speedy deletion tags on talk pages are for the talk page. Such tags for the resource are on the resource page directing discussion to the talk page. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 11:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)" Also, from my talk page.[reply]
The key thing here is that the uncivil comments though kindly redacted by user Mu301 are of course still readable. The IP was the same, that indicated someone not interested in discussion. I did not realize that Mu301 had restored the template from 20 April 2015 to begin this discussion. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent abridged history for the resource page[edit source]

See page history

At 16:48, 4 October 2013‎ Marshallsumter (discuss | contribs | block)‎ . . (3,839 bytes) (+3,839)‎ . . "(New resource with".

At 05:47, 20 April 2015‎ 75.121.236.169 (discuss | block)‎ . . (89,548 bytes) (-10,259)‎ . . "(The IGM has nothing to do with meteors. Or planets. Sections labeled with strong and weak forces have nothing to do with the strong or weak forces. This entire article is nonsense, but I've removed just a few of the worst offenders.)".

At 05:57, 20 April 2015‎ 75.121.236.169 (discuss | block)‎ . . (90,098 bytes) (+550)‎ . . "(This spambot page should be deleted. It's actually worse than nothing at all.)".

At 05:58, 20 April 2015‎ 75.121.236.169 (discuss | block)‎ . . (90,114 bytes) (+16)‎ . . "(Grr, typo in delete request)".

At 16:00, 20 April 2015‎ Marshallsumter (discuss | contribs | block)‎ m . . (93,135 bytes) (0)‎ . . "(Protected "Intergalactic medium" ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (indefinite)))".

At 10:43, 31 January 2016‎ Mu301 (discuss | contribs | block)‎ m . . (93,194 bytes) (0)‎ . . "(Removed protection from "Intergalactic medium": inappropriate use of protection to avoid discussion)".

At 10:43, 31 January 2016‎ Mu301 (discuss | contribs | block)‎ . . (618 bytes) (+618)‎ . . "(restoring inappropriately deleted content)".

At 10:46, 31 January 2016‎ Mu301 (discuss | contribs | block)‎ . . (625 bytes) (+7)‎ . . "(<strikeout> per WV:CIVIL)".

"Your reason for deleting the talk page is wholly inaccurate and very inappropriate.[3] Please discuss. --mikeu talk 11:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)". My talk page.[reply]

"Actually, the only reason I deleted it was that appeared to be what the request from the IP was for. The description appeared to be referring to the resource but the deletion template was on the talk page. It was peculiar. The history only showed you as the contributor and not the IP. I'm guessing since I just had to log in myself and it's the end of the month that you were the IP. Usually, speedy deletion tags on talk pages are for the talk page. Such tags for the resource are on the resource page directing discussion to the talk page. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 11:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)". My talk page. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection[edit source]

"I'm very concerned that this edit was not only removed but that page protection was inappropriately used to prevent discussion of the content. This is not a valid use of page protection. I had not seen this page before until I was reviewing overzealous use of protection and discovered this edit in the history." per introduction from user Mu301.

Just FYI, I have created and significantly contributed to some 484 resources here. Of this number only six, as I recall, have had page protection applied. That's 1.2 %. Nearly all of the resources I've created have been viewed and in some instances had edits performed by IPs. I believe the only other page I've protected was the heavily rolled-back quote page Victor Hugo quote per a request on the RfCustodian page as a solution to excessive IP vandalism. This does not qualify as "overzealous" anything.

The "page protection was inappropriately used to prevent discussion of the content". As I've indicated in the Resetting section, the IPs statements do not indicate someone interested in discussion. If you check the talk page for Ammonites and the user talk page for another who changed content to Ammonites without discussion you'll find extensive evidence of my willingness to discuss resources I've contributed to heavily. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Educational objectives and science issues[edit source]

From the introduction, "There are legitimate questions that the IP raises about the educational objectives of this page. I would usually treat page blanking as vandalism, but this was a very selective removal of content with a clear and coherent reason why the material was removed. The page contains no explanation of how the various sections are related to the page topic. A reader unfamiliar with the intergalactic medium would likely find this resource more confusing than educational. Please discuss. --mikeu talk 11:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)".

First of all, thanks for bringing this matter up. I had completely forgotten to repair the damage the IP had done to the lecture. I have re-inserted these section headings into the current intergalactic medium: Planetary science, Strong forces, Electromagnetics, Weak forces, and Meteors. I've also re-inserted the examples from IGM research into Control groups and Proof of concept.

I have modified the section headings from level 1 to level 2 and removed any links included previously in the section headings.

Here are some immediate points regarding the educational objectives and science issues:

  1. This resource is an original research project. See the "Research" section near the bottom of the page. It is not a Wikipedia article on the IGM. If the IP wishes to write its own resource on the IGM it's welcome to do so.
  2. This resource is a lecture in the course principles of radiation astronomy. As such section titles often reflect reoccurring topics in the course. The lecture is also a stand-alone that I'll be putting under the project astronomy.
  3. The sections on control groups and proof of concept are general descriptions, with (now) specific examples from the literature. Students may have been asked in quizzes, lessons, or laboratories about control groups and proofs of concept regarding the IGM.
  4. Many, though probably not all, of the hits received by intergalactic medium: from Wikiversity:Statistics 2015 Top 1000, "738. 2279 - Intergalactic medium" came as part of the course: "403. 4431 - Principles of Radiation Astronomy". And earlier in 2014, "983. 2305 Intergalactic medium", "231. 7043 - Principles of Radiation Astronomy". The overall radiation astronomy project was "29. 39138 - radiation astronomy" in 2015, though not on the list of the top 100 in 2014.
  5. All of the sections in the resource contain information in quotes from references about or focused on the IGM.
  6. IP comment from the resource history: "The IGM has nothing to do with meteors." Please read the re-inserted section and have a look at Meteor astronomy. Meteors often leave galaxies to enter the IGM.
  7. IP comment: "Or planets." But, techniques or observational astronomies like ultraviolet astronomy do. Recently, at least one star-less planet has been found in the interstellar medium. A simple quiz question which I may not have used is "Which radiation astronomies are used to study planets and the IGM?"
  8. IP comment: "Sections labeled with strong and weak forces have nothing to do with the strong or weak forces." I didn't say they did. The strong force here concerns major accelerations. The weak force is also a weak force, though perhaps not the weak interaction. While these section headings are themes for the course, they are meant to suggest the strong, electromagnetic, and weak interactions, but are not necessarily. I choose the quiz questions not the IP.
  9. IP comment: "This entire article is nonsense, but I've removed just a few of the worst offenders." So if you have read this far and checked things out, is "nonsense" an uncivil, inappropriate, or nonsense comment. I do not endorse censorship!
  10. IP comment: "This spambot page should be deleted." I don't think so! What do you think?
  11. IP comment: "It's actually worse than nothing at all." So I disagree strongly with "this was a very selective removal of content with a clear and coherent reason why the material was removed." --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  12. IP comment: "This entire page is just a random collection of quotes from research papers, grouped only by keywords in a completely nonsensical fashion." Each quote pertains directly to each section heading it is in. Each section heading relates to a general structure being used in the course. As a mathematician who knows exactly what "random" means, the IP might benefit from taking a course in stoichiometric processes and Monte Carlo techniques.
  13. IP comment: "Many of the quotes have nothing to do with the subjects they're in". They pertain exactly!
  14. IP comment: "there is no coherent framework to the information given". See two comment above. Even as a stand-alone the structure follows a specific framework that is definitely coherent.
  15. IP comment: "anything that isn't a direct quote is flat out wrong or irrelevant." The statements I made are well-informed and accurate. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you "repair[ed] the damage the IP had done" in April 2015, so any current critique of the resource is not due to vandalism. We're only looking at the content after the revert.
Re: "This resource is an original research project. See the "Research" section near the bottom of the page." - I understand that this is a research project and that is within the scope of our project. But, research typically follows a format where an abstract appears at the top that summarizes the problem and describes the objectives of the work. Towards the end there is a summary of results and conclusions. By placing the objectives at the end of a (very long) page it burdens the reader to search for an explanation for what they are about to read. For clarity and usability it would be better to place a brief statement explaining the objectives in an introductory paragraph. The single sentence currently in the Research section does not even clearly describe what the resource is about. This is especially important given the large ratio of quoted text and footnotes to meager descriptive explanations. ("This entire page is just a random collection of quotes from research papers, grouped only by keywords..." is a fair description of the contents.) This is not just a concern for this page, but for some of the others that you've linked to.
I can't see the rationale for including a "meteors" section in an IGM resource. By definition[1][2] a meteor is a phenomena that occurs in the Earth's atmosphere and is unrelated to the IGM. Another section is titled "minerals." Does this refer to interstellar dust grains? The text in that section only mentions elemental composition but there is no suggestion of aggregations that have crystal structure. These are just two of the confusing aspects of this page. As an astronomer I have difficulty understanding what the point of this research is given the misleading use of terminology and lack of context for the references; the average person would be even more at a loss for making sense of this resource. --mikeu talk 00:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you take a read of Meteor astronomy? As I mentioned this is not a Wikipedia article. And, it is not a conventional lecture. One of the reasons I liked links in the section title was that questions regarding terminology can be answered by going to the lecture at the link. I'm testing putting the link near the beginning so that a reader can click on it when puzzled. Another possibility may be putting the link immediately below the section title, like "==Meteors==" with See Meteor astronomy below.
I agree on the title "Minerals". The literature reports more on chemical species suggestive of dust. Something like "Rocks/Rocky objects/Dust" or simply "dusty regions" may be better. Or a separation by chemical species specifically. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I am examining the resource on its own merits and critiquing the lack of educational objectives with regard to the norms of wikiversity. The Meteor astronomy page, like this one, is just a very long list of quotes with footnotes. It can't even be called a lecture as there is no attempt to link the various quotes together and explain how they are related. If these are your undeveloped notes for a project that you are working on then the page should be clearly labeled as such or moved to userspace. This page implies that there is a link between phenomena in the Earth's atmosphere and the intergalactic medium / strong galactic winds. This is incorrect and misleading. --mikeu talk 20:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I disagree with you on all your points. I have provided what I'm referring to as a meteor and I just now clarified that further. The link is the concept of radiation: Objects moving relatively faster than the media they are in. These are not undeveloped notes. They are a view to using radiation to understand the universe. This is a valid and novel educating technique. References to conventional definitions of meteors were provided. It uses radiation as a point of view to educate about astronomically observed and theorized-about phenomena. Meteor astronomy is as with the other lectures in the course an original research project as indicated at the bottom of its page. It is not misleading or incorrect. It is what I've indicated that it is. You are entitled to your opinion, but I strongly disagree.
Perhaps moving the research project portion to the top is a better solution. It may make it clearer to the readers. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of talk page[edit source]

"Rather than address this by improving the page or discussing (as the template wording says should be done before the template is removed) you protected a page for which you are the primary author which is an action that prevents others from participating in the improvement of the resource. The buttons like protection shouldn't be used in cases where it could stifle a discussion about educational objectives."

Regarding "it could stifle a discussion about educational objectives", I've already indicated the evidence against discussion by the IP. Can you cite a counter example where someone turned such an "educational moment" into a successful discussion rather than using hypotheticals?
Most recently I had such a moment at WP (w:User_talk:Mu301#Unsourced) where an anon was overzealous in blanking page sections. It took a bit of patience to explain the BLP policy, but it worked. With w:WP:AGF and not w:WP:BITE'ing the newcomer this anon gained a deeper understanding of the norms of the project. If you'd like a local example, ask User:Atcovi about his early edit history here, if he is comfortable talking about it. --mikeu talk 15:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing a list of the tools you used and a recent example. I am aware only second hand of User:Atcovi but not of the tools used to help. Having them available is indeed helpful and the most valuable portion of our discussion so far from my point of view. I will be using them! (BTW what is BLP policy?) I understand I believe your concerns about protect and assume good faith (AGF). The Dominant group/Wikiversity effort emphasizes assume good faith (AGF) by the IPs and eventual registered contributors. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI but I protected only the resource, not the talk page.
Which prevented a valid template from being re-applied to the resource by a concerned learner. Is it really that difficult to push the Undo or Rollback button once every 2 1/2 years? This is not a high profile resource like the Main Page nor a heavily used template like {{Welcome}} where the consequences of vandalism have a high visibility. --mikeu talk 15:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As this template was a speedy deletion template and not a prod, which the speedy deletion template itself suggests for discussion, I still suspect censorship over concerned learner, sorry about that.
I've used the Undo or Rollback button probably a couple of orders of magnitude more often than protect on many other resources including those not ones I've contributed to. This example is special for two specific reasons and only two: deletion of content without discussion and uncivil statements. I do not believe we should endorse greater incivility. And, one of the features I really liked on WP was the "policy" of discuss it first. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The protection level does not prevent registered users "from participating in the improvement of the resource."
This project does not exist to only serve "registered users" - that is why anon editing is enabled in the first place. A quick look at recent changes shows a half dozen to a dozen anon edits per day. There are a few test edits and the occasional vandalism per week, but the majority are productive contributions. We really need to start thinking about anons as potential future members of our community. If we don't treat them as such they will leave, to the detriment of our growth.
I agree the majority of edits here at Wikiversity by IPs have been constructive. They have also been civil and occasionally discussive. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some of what I've written here is not specific to the discussion at hand, but you asked for my reasoning, so I'm elaborating. I want to be clear that I'm not singling you out with regard to page protection or treatment of anons. I've been having discussions with others also. I'll be bringing up the issue of page protection and "flagged revisions" for community review in the near future. For now, I've written an essay which Guy has commented on and I welcome discussion there. --mikeu talk 15:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! I'll be happy to have a read of it and perhaps comment. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As an example of an educational moment see User talk:205.222.248.125 where the vandal was not uncivil. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 12:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss and comment[edit source]

Please join in the discussion and express your opinion about how to improve this resource. Keep in mind that consensus decision making is about more than just voting. A mere thumbs up or thumbs down is a archaic relic from an uncivilized age... --mikeu talk 23:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not established just by counting votes. Wikiversity is guided by ideas that are in harmony with the education-oriented mission of the project. In judging consensus, it is the responsibility of all community members to give the most weight to rational arguments that support positions and points of view that are in harmony with the Wikiversity mission. Community members should assign less weight to discussion comments or votes that provide no rational argument to justify a point of view or that disrupt the project. — Wikiversity:Consensus

 Keep The resource is a valuable contribution as an offering from the astronomy department, as a popular lecture in the course principles of radiation astronomy, and as a stand-alone lecture as part of a series of astronomy lectures on the interplanetary medium and interstellar medium, specifically concerning plasma objects in astronomy. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all thanks for your comments! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment - Describing this as a popular lecture may be a stretch. It ranked at 983 for 2014 and wasn't ranked at all in 2015. Regarding keep or delete, my recommendation would be to restructure, with some type of learning sequence and subpages, so that the content is more easily compartmentalized. One of the areas of content theory is to not have more than seven "things" together without breaking them down or making them more understandable. The current article has 63 items, or about 9 times more than the average reader is likely to want to grasp in one viewing. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC) I agree--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 23:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above in 2015 it went up to number 738 with 2279 hits. Check Wikiversity:Statistics/2015, Top 1000 2015 All. Subpages may be a good idea. Currently planned are Astronomy/Intergalactics/Local Voids and Astronomy/Intergalactics/Voids. One problem with this is the semester version of the course promises lectures comparable to those given at a brick and mortar university, which are generally about an hour in length. That's the number one reason the resource is approximately 100 kB.
Are one of your online lectures broken down into small subpages that I can take a look at? Since we do not want subpage links in the section titles, I'd like a few suggestions on how to do this.
I've looked at Principles of management. It's short with 6804 B, 20 sections and popular at number 4 with 111,610 hits for 2015. But no subpages! It lists the 14 principles of management from a book (referenced). --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed the 2015 link when I did a "What links here". I'd recommend looking at the following, which are our most popular resources designed as courses:
I've never seen a correlation between kilobytes of content and hours of presentation. There are several guidelines recommending 1.5 to 3 minutes per PowerPoint slide, or between 20 and 40 slides per hour. That would put this content at about double the length of a typical one-hour presentation. But without some type of chunking, even a stack of 20 or 30 resources would be difficult to consume. Each of the resources above demonstrates options for chunking. Also note that by chunking with subpages, you can identify with hit counts whether people are actually interested in the content (reading the various subpages) or turned off by it (not proceeding further). -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Radiation astronomy - #29 in terms of project statistics. Unfortunately, our current hit counter still isn't working. One thing I noticed on Wikipedia was a length of article limit of about 150 kB. This also suggested to me the maximum length. Are you determining the "turned off by it" from a timing before they jump to another url? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the project statistic ranking is a valid calculation. It's based on total hits, so the more subpages a project has, the higher the ranking. It should probably be divided by page count to see actual usage for comparison. For staying power, I look at page usage from one subpage to the next. If you see a lot of hits on the main page and first subpage, but no corresponding hits on the second subpage, you're losing interested readers on that first subpage. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a listing of hits per subpage would really be more helpful, but I don't as yet have the software to do that. Would you be willing to run yours if possible to look only at either Astronomy/ or Radiation astronomy/ hits. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 11:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment - Reduce it down to a brief paragraph with an invitation for readers to either expand the page or create content in a subpage. Put everything else currently in Intergalactic medium into a single subpage called Intergalactic medium/Ontology --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 23:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I can appreciate "an invitation for readers to either expand the page or create content in a subpage." With 2279 hits in 2015, I'd guess readers are reading only. The quizzes are usually between 50 and 200 hits per year. One overall problem is that the lecture gained 25 % in ranking but lost 1 % in popularity. This suggests perhaps the matter of readability on mobile phones.
You are correct the the existence of the IGM was the initial problem. But its existence has been established.
I'm puzzled why you suggest "Put everything else currently in Intergalactic medium into a single subpage called Intergalactic medium/Ontology." The sections present do much more than establish its existence but highlight ongoing research. The planned subpagination is Astronomy/Intergalactics. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe what the two of you are suggesting, especially away from the analog to a brick-and-mortar class are a set of subpages in a brief review such as Solar system, technical which didn't make either the top 1000 or the top 100 projects.
It may be better to keep the framework for the course for now until its popularity drops off the top 100 projects. (Currently at number 29 with 39138 hits). During that period I can convert to an online only multi-subpage format that allows readers to briefly scan say 6000 B then click on a subpage for another ~6000 as their interest takes them. In the end they may still enjoy scanning upwards of 100 kB but distributed over say 15 to 20 subpages. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I question if this is even an astronomy resource. I realize that it has copious references taken from astronomy research but the topic here appears to be control groups or possibly Dominant group that merely uses astronomy examples (among topics taken from other subjects) to make a point about the usage of language related to groups. This is really my primary concern: it skews searches for the more conventional kind of resource that one would expect to find at this title. That is very likely why the ip wound up here and expressed frustration. If the material is consolidated it should be done under a title that is less misleading. --mikeu talk 00:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Control groups are used in original research to test hypotheses as indicated by the references from the astronomy research on the intergalactic medium. Dominant group isn't mentioned in the lecture, though I have noticed "dominant" occurring in the literature and some sources did use it here. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the IP was expressing disagreement with the information, not frustration. Only someone with a preconceived notion of the IGM would have done what it did. I can open minds if they're interested. This is an original research project focused into a lecture on the IGM. The purpose is three-fold: education about the IGM, presentation of the state of the art or science, and setting the stage for conduction of original research. It's definitely an astronomy resource but a novel one. If you'll pardon the analogy, I'm the forward-thinking original researcher your professors warned you about. When I was an undergrad, before the discovery of the iridium layer, I suggested astronomical events could have caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. I was told (and I'm not kidding) if I wanted to be a geologist I'd better give up these astronomical notions and go with uniformitarianism. So do you want the future, or do you want conventionalism? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I can't guarantee that I or anybody else would find this an acceptable solution, but what about putting this as a subpage of Radiation Astronomy? That frees up mainspace for more conventional projects. I think two or perhaps three of us believe something has to be done.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's an acceptable alternative to me. Radiation astronomy is the primary investigative tool being used. Perhaps 10 % of the resources in the course have the project as Astronomy/. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 11:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI but Wikipedia no longer has an article on the intergalactic medium per se. They redirect to w:Outer space. The article they do have is on the w:Warm-hot intergalactic medium. This probably explains some of intergalactic medium's popularity here. Resources with relatively unique titles here sometimes show up on Google Advanced search ahead of Wikipedia. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 12:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to move to subpage of Radiation astronomy[edit source]

Should we move Radiation astronomy to Radiation astronomy/Intergalactic medium?

Discuss[edit source]

As an aside on the issue of page protection, I have something to add to

User:Mu301/Learning_blog#An essay on the philosophy and practice of the "wiki way"

As another aside, note how Mu301 keeps mainspace clean by placing items not of interest to most general readers in a subspace, this time in userspace. I think we need to put more things in userspace, but let's save that discussion for another day.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 12:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit source]

@Mu301 and Dave Braunschweig: R U happy w Radiation astronomy/Intergalactics?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - It's not my area of expertise. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My first preference would be userspace given that the page lacks an introductory statement of the objectives at the top and the body of the page has little explanation for how the quoted references relate to one another. I had difficulty finding unquoted text in the page. It is more of a (overly long) bibliography than a structured learning resource.
I would weakly support a move to Radiation astronomy/Intergalactics. I strongly oppose a subpage of Astronomy as that page title really needs to be replaced with a general and more coherent introductory explanation of the topic. Page titles for prime subjects that visitors might search for like Astronomy (or Rocks) should conform to what the general reader expects to find about a topic and not lead to an idiosyncratic research project that redefines commonly used terms (like meteor) in a confused manner.
While it is within the scope of Wikiversity to host original research it needs to be clearly delineated from the mainstream point of view supported by scholarship in its field. Wikiversity is not only for original research, our mission is to provide resources for a wide variety of learning from primary to secondary, etc. Page titles should be selected in a manner that aides site navigation from the perspective of the range of possible visitors.
As a minor aside, I think we may need assistance from a bot to remove links in section titles such as Astronomy#Astrochemistry that breaks mobile navigation. It could also be done manually, though that would be a lot of work. Regardless of which method is used, those links eventually need to be fixed. --mikeu talk 17:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for mentioning Astronomy#Astrochemistry, and links in section title effects on mobile navigation. I've been fixing as I go through resources. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's really up to you if you want to fix them by hand or request help from a bot. There's no urgency. --mikeu talk 23:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit source]

  1. ↑ Editors. "Merriam-Webster Dictionary". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2014-09-21. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  2. ↑ "Glossary International Meteor Organization". International Meteor Organization (IMO). Retrieved 2011-09-16.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sources/Intergalactic_medium/Archive_1&oldid=2591883"