Talk:Art practices

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Proposed transformation into a project[edit source]

The resource on Art practices was created by User:Dx in November 2013. It consisted of a series of links to art practice resources.[1]. The user expressed an interest in working on art practices and art movements, and created pages to that end. Relevant to art practices, links to mainspace pages were set up, and these pages were actually created:

The user also created mainspace pages for art movements. One of the pages above was speedy deleted because it appeared to not be in English. As a general principle, stubs and lightly-developed resources are at risk of deletion if stand-alone in mainspace. Hence my practice has been to consolidate pages into over-arching learning resources, and with the pages above, the user had already done this by setting up the Art practices page; all that remained was to move the pages to subpages.

In discussions with myself and Guy vandegrift, the user accepted this idea and started to move content to the subpages, but did not understand using Move, and instead thought that new pages would be created by copying and the old pages would be deleted, see permanent link. I stopped the user from continuing that (which loses page history). Waiting for a custodian to delete the copied pages, I left pages in mainspace pending, so the Art resources page shows some pages in mainspace and some in subspace.[2]. At this point, there were three users agreeing on setting up a subspace structure with all the pages.

However, another user has now requested that the pages remaining in mainspace not be moved without discussion.

and a page not included by the original user, but created by this user:

The user has not explained why. This is the user's opportunity. --Abd (discusscontribs) 02:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Subpages are used to help organise individual projects such as courses, seminars, and research projects."(Wikiversity:Subpages) The other pages mentioned are still being used outside the proposed Learning Project. Leutha (discusscontribs) 21:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That proposed subpage guideline is primitive, never completed, as pointed out on the Talk page. The word "individual" was accidental there, the sentence works without it. I have done countless studies here and use subpages routinely. It was, however, only in the last five years that we began to actively use subpaging for site organization. It is now routine. A subpage structure underneath a mainspace page may include many learning resources, with different users, etc. ( On Talk:Art movements/Avant-Garde/Neoism, Leutha asks that we fork a page. This would not be done by creating competing mainspace pages, that would violate neutrality policy. Rather, it is done with attributed subpages, neutrally linked. Forks. This is how we have, at least a few times, avoided content conflict and the result is deeper content and even cooperation between users who might otherwise be at severe odds.)
Now, Leutha is claiming that the pages are "still being used outside the proposed learning project. Passive voice. He gives no specifics. So let's look!
The pages were created by a user, then, as a learning project covering art movements and art practices. I have treated this as creating two separate (though related) projects, one on art practices, which may grow to include practices from various movements or art practices in general, and one on art movements. The basic structure here, then, was created by the user but, like many new users, the user did not know how to use subpage structure, so created a master project page (Art practices) with what would have been redlinks (and many still are redlinks) and then separate pages in mainspace for the subtopics. The user fully accepted the suggestion of using subpages, as explained above, and began the process of moving content to Art practices.
Now, in mid-process, comes Leutha who claims that the pages are "still being used outside of the proposed learning project." What does that mean? None of the edits to the pages, so far, would be inappropriate because of the pages being moved, as some of them were, to being subpages of Art practices. No learning or documentation, linking, etc., would be inhibited. What is the conflict, the damage done by moves, requiring it be interrupted in process?
I have an idea, but I greatly prefer that Leutha express himself, rather than my reading his mind. I ask that, this time, he explain himself more fully. So far, each comment has been, for me, vague and not easily understood.--Abd (discusscontribs) 00:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. I'm not vague.Leutha (discusscontribs) 07:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I'm not claiming you are Vague, but am reporting that your comments are vague to me. So who you are and are not is not relevant. However, your lack of consent is clear, therefore I will escalate, after giving you a little time to think about it. Let me know if you change your mind, because this will waste the time of other users; on the other hand, maybe we need a test case. --Abd (discusscontribs) 13:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I feel you should heed Dave Braunschweig's helpful request here. I regard your previous post as inappropriate, in that you indicate that you have already decided to "escalate" matters (i.e. more canvassing). It appears that you principle desire here is to concoct a test case. Clearly you do not grasp that it is often useful to use similar content in different ways when creating educational resources, thus your concerns about forking affecting neutrality are misplaced. Leutha (discusscontribs) 11:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an unfortunate comment. "Escalate" is a term used in consensus formation process. It means to bring to wider attention. This is not canvassing, and if anyone thinks it is, they have no understanding of either canvassing or dispute resolution. Above, I see pure unexplained intransigence, blocking a normal and common collection of highly related resources. And then, "escalated" by taking comment on this to the Colloquium on something completely unrelated (a discussion of a warning for alleged canvassing.). The above was frank and honest discussion, as would occur within any academic setting. The question is whether or not we want to involve more users to handle what is normally totally routine, that, here, had no opposition other than the unexplained and unclear opposition of Leutha. Something different may "often" -- or always or sometimes or rarely -- be useful, but not be useful here. No explanation has been given for opposition to completing the process here, it's half-done. It's tempting to just go ahead and move the pages, and let Leutha then handle it if he wants. However, that is not my normal practice. It is to discuss, and in other comments today, Leutha makes it clear that careful and thorough discussion, reporting research and analysis, is very much unwelcome. This is inimical to the very purposes of Wikiversity. Discussion, here, can be the core of our work. Hence I am considering escalating to appropriate fora. Over something that should be trivial, the presentation of a single clearly-related set of resources, but the behavior of a probationary custodian is not trivial. It is an indication of how the user would behave if approved as full. A probationer who is reactive and hostile to advice is dangerous. What I do will be to ask the community. It seems a series of issues are presenting all at once. So I will need to prioritize. --Abd (discusscontribs) 19:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Psychogeography - is also a part of social science, literature, human geography... its not appropriate to have it as a sub page of art practices. It is very unhel;pful to keep moving these pages around! Dx (discusscontribs) 08:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]