Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion

From Wikiversity
(Redirected from Wikiversity:RFD)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Deletion guideline | Deletion log | Archives

Shortcuts

We welcome and appreciate civil discussion of requests to delete or undelete pages when reasonable objections are made or are likely, the advice in Wikiversity:Deletions is followed, and other options have failed. A good attitude is to explain what you have tried, ask for help or advice from fellow Wikiversity participants on what to do now, keep an open mind, accept any community consensus, and focus on how pages can be improved. Finding ways to improve pages is the preferred outcome of any discussion and consensus here. Pages should always be kept when reasonable concerns are adequately addressed. Reasons and responses should be specific and relate to Wikiversity policy or scope in some way, kept brief, and stated in a positive or neutral way. Vague reasons ("out of scope", "disruptive") may be ignored.

A clear consensus should emerge before archiving a request. Often discussion takes a week or more to reach a clear consensus. Remember to add {{dr}} to the top of pages nominated for deletion. You can put "keep", "delete", or "neutral" at the beginning of your response, but consensus is established by discussion and reasoning, not mere voting.

How to begin discussion[edit source]

  1. Add {{Deletion request}} or {{dr}} to the image, category or resource nominated for deletion.
  2. Add a new section to the end of this page using the following format:
    == [[Page title]] ==
    reasons why this page ought to be deleted --~~~~

Deletion requests

If an article should be deleted and does not meet speedy deletion criteria, please list it here. Include the title and reason for deletion. If it meets speedy deletion criteria, just tag the resource with {{Delete|reason}} rather than opening a deletion discussion here.

If an article has been deleted, and you would like it undeleted, please list it here. Please try to give as close to the title as possible, and list your reasons for why it should be restored. The first line after the header should be: Undeletion requested

Unused files uploaded by PCano[edit source]

I suggest to delete the 287 unused files listed in Category:Files uploaded by PCano - unused. A longer discussion about unused files in general can be seen at Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/20#Thousands_of_unused_files and a similar discussion about files uploaded by Robert Elliott was closed as delete above. Uploader have not been actice since 2011 so it is unlikely the files will ever be used. The files seems to be a part of a set of data. I do not know if the set is complete. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 19:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the details, but sometimes the WikiJournals process the copyright differently. Has anybody checked with them about these files? If not, I would be happy to do the deed.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy vandegrift I have not checked with WikiJournals. I was not thinking about copyright but if we are sure the files are correct and if they are of use to anyone? --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 14:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall, files that are imbedded in pdf files are don't show up as being used. I don't know why the WikiJournal would care, the wikitext but want the pdf and raw files (wouldn't make any sense.) But the value of the Wikijournals is such that somebody needs to double check.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the files are really embedded in a pdf (not linked), they are part of the pdf, and even if the files get deleted, the content is still in the pdf. What are examples of pdfs produced by Wikijurnals? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More for the record and about the question where these files were probably used: The uploader User:PCano (Pedro Cano, M.D., M.B.A. MD Anderson Cancer Center, HLA Typing Laboratory, Houston, TX ) created Genetics/Human Leukocyte Antigen (originally under the title HLA, moved to Genetics/Human Leukocyte Antigen in April 2017), which was much later (in December 2022) deleted as per Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion/Archives/18#Subpages of Genetics/Human Leukocyte Antigen. Deleting the files used there seems to be a natural follow-up on that deletion decision. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving of Invalid fair use by User:Marshallsumter[edit source]

This space is for any unfinished business from that discussion.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 07:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can be closed and archived, I guess. If anyone figures out a new task in the area of "Invalid fair use by User:Marshallsumter", they can open a new RFD nomination as and when they do so. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the task (as mentioned in Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/20#Pervasive copyright violations by User:Marshallsumter) is to check all the files uploaded by User:Marshallsumter and check if they meet the criteria for fair use. Sadly it is 1,151 files so I doubt anyone will spend the time on that. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 14:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to support preemptively deleting all files (not pages) uploaded by User:Marshallsumter. The fact that many of the files uploaded by him were determined not to meet Wikiversity criteria for fair use should be grounds enough. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we deleted all his files and userfied all his pages. Apparently I was wrong: File:Earth Shells to Scale.png // Earth/Geognosy/Quiz // Earth/Geognosy. When I deleted his images, I went to a page (category?) that someone else created. ... See also: This List. Apparently this user spend all day long uploading files and putting them into pages he/she created. ... @AP295: This is why I don't bother with a couple of nutcase articles in Physics/Essays--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone's interest, the upload list is visible at Special:ListFiles/Marshallsumter; a single-page view is at https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles&limit=1160&user=Marshallsumter. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 18:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The abuse of the fair use doctrine by this former participant is so egregious that I fully support nuking all image uploads. --mikeu talk 04:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I presume all pages by same participant that contain these images?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 08:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any pages that have copious copyvio images should be deleted, along with the images. If there are pages without image violation they should be userfied. I doubt there are very many resources that have relevant learning content without copyvio. So, that leaves the resource pages open to deletion - which I support. --mikeu talk 01:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed discussion related to User:Marshallsumter and other topics[edit source]

(Moved from Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/22#User pages created as part of Computer Essentials (ICNS 141) --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

@MGA73: While I have your attention, I am confused about two lists that I compiled from various requests on RFD:
  1. >1500 Marshallsumter files: Why we deleting Marshallsumter images?
  2. Draft:Original research/Literature & Dominant group/Literature Marshallsumter sometimes delves into the "soft" (unscientific) subjects like literature where personal taste becomes important. I see no reason to delete or even read them.
  3. 287 PCano files I believe these are being deleted because they are unused, yes?
  4. I am not very skilled at uploading files to commons that I did not create (most of my contributions need only attribution to other files on commons.) I uploaded three files from the loc, and it was a time-consuming learning experience. Is there someone else who can do it? Perhaps I could watch till I got the hang of it.
  5. After writing this I found 2497946#Exemption_Doctrine_Policy, which answers a lot of my questions.
  6. I find this page a bit cluttered, but can live with it. If you want a general archiving and cleanup-just ask.
--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy vandegrift: Hello!

  1. Many of the files uploaded by Marshallsumter did not meet the requirements of fair use (violating the Exemption Doctrine Policy). I think all "the easy files" are deleted now. So to clean up the rest we either need hard work or a brute descision to delete everything just to be safe.
  2. I do not think I suggested to delete those 2 pages?
  3. Yes because they are unused.
  4. If you mean move files from here to Commons it is very easy: just click the tab "Export to Wikimedia Commons". If you mean files you found on the Internet it is more tricky. You need to add the relevant information manually and more important add a source. If you found a website with hundreds or thousands of good files it may be possible to do with a bot (see c:Commons:Batch uploading).
  5. Great :-)
  6. I can live with it too.

--MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 15:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On #1, I am happy with the brute decision if you are. It's the uploader's responsibility to document the copyright. Recently Mu301 and I "rescued" some high-quality photos on a high-quality resource. But that was an exceptional case. Regarding #4, is (or should it be) our policy to move all Wikiversity files to Commons that are not fair use? My problem with that is we sponsor some pretty low-quality stuff. For example, instructors sometimes use Wikiversity for student submissions, and we can't delete those files until the course is over (in fact, we have no policy on deleting course-affiliated student submissions.) What do we do if the main page is a high-quality course, but some of the student submissions have no educational value?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy vandegrift: I have no problem if everything is deleted in #1. And I also have no problems if course-affiliated student submissions are deleted after some time (#4). But I think both should be discussed on separate topics (perhaps just move the content to #Archiving_of_Invalid_fair_use_by_User:Marshallsumter). --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 14:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been on Wikiversity for more than 10 years, most of the time not paying attention to such things, but I am unaware of any policy that calls for the routine deletion of student efforts that were created as part of an established course. If no decision has ever been made to routinely delete student efforts, we need to make sure the entire community is on board with any change in policy.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree. Deleting student efforts that were created as part of an established course needs a new discussion and concensus.
Except if it is a copyvio then it should be deleted. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting ALL non-free uploads by User:Marshallsumter[edit source]

Okay so it seems everyone agree that files that violates Wikiversity criteria for fair use should be deleted - not a big surprise :-D

The big question is if files should be checked one by one or if they should all be deleted. I noticed that some users more or less support to delete all non-free files.

I therefore have 2 questions:

  1. Do you agree to delete all non-free files?
  2. Would you like to try to save any of the files and if yes should all the files be put on a list or in a category or how do you propose to make that possible?

Ping User:Guy vandegrift, User:Dan Polansky, User:Mu301, User:Koavf, User:Omphalographer, User:Dave Braunschweig, User:AP295 and User:MathXplore that was involved in discussions recently. Sorry if I missed anyone and if you do not want to join this time thats of course okay. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 14:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Yes
  2. No
—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also yes to 1 and no to 2, with the understanding that this policy only applies to MS because of the large volume of images involved.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct and also because MS had a lot of bad files. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 05:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. yes, all non-free files should be deleted, prejudiced.
  2. no, I don't believe that there is anything worth saving, in this batch from MS.
--mikeu talk 21:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused files uploaded by Katluvdogs[edit source]

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.
Consensus to delete all files. All are deleted.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to delete the 137 unused files listed in Category:Files uploaded by Katluvdogs - unused. A longer discussion about unused files in general can be seen at Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/20#Thousands_of_unused_files and a similar discussion about files uploaded by Robert Elliott was closed as delete above. Uploader have not been actice since 2009 so it is unlikely the files will ever be used. The files seems to be class notes but in order for the files to be usable they have to be categorized. Also it seems many are questions and questions are good but there should also be answers somewhere in order for it to be educational. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 10:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone ever wonder which files it was they can see the files in my sandbox history. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 15:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all files is my choice. I see a 3-0 vote to delete, since Dan's vote was to delete if there are no objections (and nobody objected.)--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion of all of these unused files. --mikeu talk 01:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done deleted all files in Category:Files uploaded by Katluvdogs - unused--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ontosomose of Gender[edit source]

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

I opened this RFD for a single purpose and that is: move this page created in 2007 by an anon to Draft:Archive/2024/Ontosomose of Gender rather than deleting it. It would be a pity to lose this little gem, quite possibly created as a joke. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good example of why we should just archive that which we do not understand. It looks like gibberish to me, but Google Scholar has this article on him. We may or may not be qualified to disagree with Google Scholar. But we are certainly too small in number and to busy to look into everything Google Scholar deems worthy of mentioning. The suggestion that we move into Draft:Archive is seconded and checkY Done.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy vandegrift: can you undelete Draft:Archive/2024/Ontosomose of Gender, unless your intent is to actually have it deleted? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I undeleted it. It was an accidental delete on my part. You may move it out of draft-archive. Giving all editors the right to revert a move to draft-archive was my motive for creating Draft:Archive--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OpenOffice.org[edit source]

This one has me confused. I used OpenOffice a long time ago, but grew tired of the advertising that came with the download. The page looks good to me, but some subpages have been nominated for speedy deletion. What makes this case interesting is the history. Two high ranking WV administrators (Jtneill and Dave Braunschweig) worked hard to bring it up to speed, though I am sure neither currently objects to the project's deletion. I drop their names so everybody believes me when I say that policy change is in the air. Discuss it if you wish, or go ahead and make a vote so I can look for a consensus. It won't take much convincing to get me to move it to Draft:Archive/2024/OpenOffice.org, especially if we leave a redirect. In fact, I will move with a redirect if anybody "votes" to move or delete.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 19:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated OpenOffice.org/Writer and other subpages for speedy deletion. Looking at OpenOffice.org, I do not see any saving grace either => delete, or move to userspace or move to draft archive. The page OpenOffice.org as it is does almost nothing to help one learn about OpenOffice.org; the few external links do not save it. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my vote to move relative material to WP because we don't need time-consuming solutions. Will keep discussion open to permit others to perform the deed if they wish.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the voting section I was asked why pages are safer in Draft:Archive-space than in Draft-space. That got me thinking: Why do we have a policy that allows drafts to be deleted after 6 months? Why not leave the effort in draft-space, with the understanding that anybody who want to improve the dormant draft can just blank it? This preserves the effort for whomever made it in the history of that draft? This will greatly reduce the number of pages that go into Draft:Archive. I created Draft:Archive so that nobody's prior efforts would get lost. The fewer pages I have to put there the better. We need a consensus to go into Wikiversity:Drafts and change that policy.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 05:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting on OpenOffice.org[edit source]

Please keep your vote, comment, and signature under 1 kB. Longer comments go in the section above.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 19:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy vandegrift: I am not sure what you mean by "This page is safer [...]" -- perhaps you mean it is likely likely to be effectively lost in the draft namespace or deleted from the draft namespace (?). I respect your views on that. I am happy enough that good faith contributions are moved to Draft namespace rather than deleted. I respect diversity of views and opinion about how Draft namespace could be best organized to be most collectively fruitful for the Creative Commons and this wiki. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 04:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Ten: According to Wikiversity:Drafts, "Resources which remain in the draft space for over 180 days (6 months) without being substantially edited may be deleted.". I do not like that policy, BTW.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 05:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Thank you for educating me on that. I agree with you; I do not think that is fruitful to the Creative Commons. You inspired this suggestion. Appreciated. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 05:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metadata[edit source]

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

From my speedy deletion nomination: "little to learn from here and the little that is here is from Wikipedia; no FR/EL". I have no objection to this being moved to user space or to Draft:Archive. Guideline: WV:Deletions. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As we decide what to do with [[Metadata]], I assembled a choice of templates we might use in the future with such pages. These templates use MAGIC WORDS that are connected to the current year and the page's location in namespace, and for that reason it is best to view the templates on a page that is actually up for deletion/pagemove. Two of the variations were designed by me to make it easier to copy/paste the new pagename (I also included the template's name to make it easier to for newbies to learn.)--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see only two templates as relevant: Template:delete (speedy) and Template:rfd: non-speedy. I logged my disagreement to the template "Draftify" at Wikiversity:Colloquium#Template:Draftify, which is what I think is the best place to discuss that template. I also created Wikiversity:Colloquium#Expanding WV:Deletions with Moving to Draft archive to codify what has recently been ongoing, namely that pages have been being moved to Draft archive instead of deleted; and I hope to get some supports there.
As for "Metadata", the key decision is "keep in mainspace" vs. "remove from mainspace" and this is what this RFD is about. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Polansky: The problem with Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion is that is a "round hole" and the community is evolving towards "square pegs". Meanwhile, I need a bottom line so I can look for sufficient consensus to act.o

Voting on Metadata[edit source]

Change your vote as you wish. If you are not ready to vote, join the discussion directly above this "voting section""

Facilitation[edit source]

Trivial questions don't save what is a page with learning outcomes that are scarce (WV:Deletions]). I don't care whether this gets deleted, moved to userspace or moved to Draft:Archive. This was proposed for deletion in 2016 by Dave Braunschweig and was "saved" by adding questions that in my view are trivial and do not save the article. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think the page achieves anything. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, pending vote to rescind the 6-month draftspace deletion rule (latest vote change)--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 11:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Archive, Delete, or Userspace (roughly in that order: vote cast on behalf of Dan Polansky by Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)That's accurate. I guess I prefer Archive. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify (Move to Draft namespace) - I contributed to this page in good faith. Deleting this page rather than preserving it somewhere will further decrease my motivations to contribute Creative Commons content to the Commons on this wiki, with the understanding that it is OK and considered a "best practice" to delete some good faith Creative Commons contributions on this wiki. A relevant rational may also be found here. Limitless peace. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 04:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "good faith" talk is, in my view, entirely beside the point. Faith is not in question in deletion discussion, merely the aptness of the material for inclusion on a project, or inclusion in a specific namespace. For example, Wikiversity is not a repository of good-faith small children's creations or their analogues, or at least its mainspace is not. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, the word you are looking for is "rationale", not "rational". --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Polansky: I do not accept your premise that "Wikiversity is not a repository of (small children's creations)". ... Also, there is a parallel discussion at Wikiversity_talk:Deletions#Proposed_modifications, and it may remove most of the need for Draft:Archive. Michael Ten has pointed out that pages in draftspace could remain permanently. Looking back into the history, I discovered that I voted for the 180 limit. I had forgotten all about that vote, but my own choice of wording jogged my memory: I voted for a 180 day limit because the decision to delete old drafts seemed like a foregone conclusion (Groupthink - who needs it!)--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, from what does it follow that Wikiversity is such a repository? Which guideline, policy or scope statement? By small children I mean, say 0-6 years olds. Should e.g. scans of all pictures drawn by such children be uploadable as "educational content"? And if not pictures, should their first writings be uploadable? Why do they need publishing; does their local harddrive storage not serve the creative purpose enough? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I overstated my remark about children's work: For the most part, it belongs in userspace or draftspace. And, we need the parent's permission. But colleges teach courses in elementary education. I once walked into such a course and somebody was reading a children's book to the entire class. But we have no entrance requirements for Wikiversity, no minimum IQ is needed. Keep in mind that our differences are matters of personal taste (not factual reality.) The question at hand at Wikiversity_talk:Deletions#Proposed_modifications is what requirements we wish to have for a page to reside indefinitely in draftspace.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that we close this discussion with decision to delete, as author voted for that option.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 08:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HHF[edit source]

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

This page stands for "High School Help Forum". It never became anything useful, it seems; it mostly contains pages that invite people to post but posts with actual content to learn from are missing. It has subpages that contain nothing useful, e.g. HHF/Physics/Introductory Physics, HHF/Physics/Mechanics, and HHF/Physics/Heat. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Draft archive or move to user space or delete, whatever is considered more appropriate. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify (pending vote to rescind 6-month draftspace deletion rule) Here's my problem: (1) Moving to draft space is not possible because the effort to allow unlimited presence in draft-space is stalled. (2) I don't want to move to draft-archive space because that is more time-consuming than moving to draft space. (3) Deletion is out because I strongly oppose, and I see no evidence of a community consensus to delete (as defined by Wikipedia and Wikitionary)--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 10:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There can very well be a 2/3-consensus to delete if one or two people join the discussion and say something like "delete per WV:Deletions". Therefore, it does not seem true that deletion is out of question. It depends on who turns out and who decides to follow the actual guideline WV:Deletions as currently specified. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a closer look at HHF and its 39(?) subpages. It's totally empty of content, but with an interesting use of wikitext. I could transfer three or so pages to Draft:Archive and send the rest to the author's userspace. LIke with Marshallsumpter, it would have to be moved in about three parts because I can't even move that many pages in one operation. That makes a 2-0 vote and I'm sure nobody else would object. See also User_talk:MathXplore#Question_about_soft_deletion.... --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update

As this RFD page has gone dormant, I will probably draft-archive this page, but leave the templates intact (i.e. I won't dewikify it.) It has occurred to me that since pages in draft-archive are organized by year, we can slowly dewikify after a few years of no edits. I will later post details on Wikiversity:What-goes-where 2024--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 00:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surreal numbers[edit source]

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.
Page has a makeover buy me (it was fun!). Closing as "keep in mainspace"-Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) Initially, this page made almost no sense to me; it did not explain what the "{x|y}" notation was supposed to mean. 2) However, from reading Wikipedia: Surreal numbers, I see this notation is actually used. But then, the Wikiversity page has very little content and does not seem to do anything that the Wikipedia page does not do better. At a minimum, it should explain the notation. The page should only exist if it does something that Wikipedia does not do, e.g. by being more didactic or tutorial-like. 3) As always, I am fine with this being moved to user space or Draft archive. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has only one author, the proper place would be userspace. It could also go into subpace as a student project in mathematics. I have Physics/Essays, and it could easily go there.---Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 09:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decadic numbers[edit source]

Arguably, this is not good enough for the mainspace; I have no objections to this being in the draft space or the userspace. Issues: 1) The page appears to be an original research but is not marked as such; 2) it introduces the term "decadic number" as an original terminological invention, as far as I can tell, but does not disclose this to be the case; 3) the term "decadic number" is unfortunate since what is meant is something like "infinite decadic number"; 4) even the term "number" is questionable since it is not clear how these so-called numbers can have anything to do with quantity (but then, complex numbers arguably also do not express quantity, or a single quantity); 5) no attempt to formally define what a decadic number is made; this so-called decadic number appears to be a mapping from positive integers to the set of digits 0-9, to be interpreted from right to left; 6) e.g. "Addition of the decadic numbers is the same as that of the integers" is clearly untrue: integers are finite discrete quantities; ditto for "Multiplication works the same way in the decadic numbers as in the integers".

Perhaps this can be salvaged rather than moved out of mainspace. The first thing to do is add external sources dealing with the concept or state that this is original invention; and then, address the issues. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As with Surreal numbers the choice is between userspace and a subspace where users could be encouraged to cooperate. Unlike Surreal numbers, I am unaware of any application in physics for this topic. The ideal place would be Discrete mathematics/Number theory because the Olympiads is a high school thing. I will contact the author about both pages--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 09:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the page should stay in mainspace, I see no reason why it could not stay at Decadic numbers; I don't see moving it around in mainspace as an improvement. But my position as explained above is that it is not fit for mainspace. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decadic numbers and Surreal numbers have enough that they should be parallel subpages of the same page. I have suggested to the author that they should either create a top page, or find a top page and group these resources together.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rational numbers/Introduction[edit source]

The page does not do anything that Wikipedia does not do better: Wikipedia: Rational number. The page contains unfilled tables that seemed to be intended to explain something, but since they are empty, explain nothing. The page has no further reading, revealing no attempt to find best complementary sources online, probably of much higher quality. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see why you were kicked off Wiktionary. Wikiversity has a long and established tradition of allowing student efforts. This page is no worse that Student Projects/Major rivers in India, a page which I randomly selected from Student Projects. I am trying to recruit students to contribute to Wikiversity. Until the Wikiversity community changes its mind about allowing student projects, I will continue with that quest. I will change the template so as to not discourage a person clearly interested in teaching mathematics, and I want you to refrain from placing rfd templates on student efforts. Use {{subpagify}} instead.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 12:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was blocked in the English Wiktionary for "racism" and more. In the English Wiktionary, I often defended pages nominated for deletion and rather rarely nominated anything for deletion. The English Wiktionary has almost no useless pages and is the 2nd most often visited project after Wikipedia. By contrast, the English Wikiversity has very few useful pages, a state of affairs that I am trying to turn around, step by step, following processes and guidelines that I did nothing to establish: WV:RFD and WV:Deletions. That is as far as persons go (ad hominem); as far as process, I hoped here to have a discussion with editors about whether this nearly useless page (Rational numbers/Introduction) should be moved out of the mainspace, and unless consensus developed for my position, I stand no chance to prevail. Rational numbers/Introduction is not a "student project" in any sense of "project" but rather example of all-too-typical junk. Again, I do not decide, others do with me being only a single voice/input. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are on the right track! Wikiversity might be in a transition period between allowing all sorts of pages, to morphing into a selective institution. But the process has to change from the top-down, not from the bottom by deleting one page at a time. When I say "top", I am referring not to the administrators, but to the community at large. At present, RFD has nothing near the quorum required to implement the changes you (and others) are seeking. Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only reasonable way going forward, to my mind anyway, is to follow WV:Deletions and not worry about the precedent of its countless violations. Since, should we take e.g. Relation between Electricity And Magnetism, existing since 2011‎, as an example of a page to be kept, then we must keep nearly everything. There are too many pages like that, and therefore, if we take their aggregate as a binding precedent to follow, we end up in trouble, unable to delete junk. It seems only fair to proceed according WV:Deletions, especially when using RFD process which gives potential opposition enough time to object. Such a procedure violates neither established guidelines nor processes; if it "violates" anything, then preexisting extreme lenience/tolerance toward junk, lenience that, as far as I know, was never codified into a guideline. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Please don't use this page as an agenda for reforming Wikiversity. Go to the Colloquium or write an essay. Having said that, I did delete Creating Relation between Electricity And Magnetism because that follows both guidelines and established practice.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, lenience is given an advantage when pages are up for deletion (See Special:Permalink/2615245#Wikipedia's_deletion_policy for evidence that deletion requires somewhat of a super-majority.) But you are not calling for deletion of low quality pages. Instead you want them out of mainspace. We have room for compromise. But, as I said before: RFD is not the place to discuss this. If you want, I could take "Wikiversity:What-goes-where 2024" out of my user-space and we could discuss it there.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Student Projects/Major rivers in India[edit source]

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.
Closing with administrative decision to keep (snowball clause) --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 23:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC) -premature closure reverted. Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This page fails WV:Verifiability, for one: surely the author cannot know these statements without consulting a source, but no source (zero) is provided. Thus, the author did nothing to meet a verification standard. The reader does not learn anything they could not have learned in Wikipedia => no value for the reader. The page uses almost no wiki features, except for boldface, so the author did not practice wiki editing either. I would have used speedy nomination, but since I expect some opposition, I go for RFD. This shall be my last post to this RFD nomination; I defer to the collective of other editors for the decision. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is closed due to the Snowball clause. For more information, see 2617055-Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 23:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A transparent link to what above is not a Wikiversity guideline/policy: w:simple:Wikipedia:Snowball act. It says "stop things which don't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing". To my mind, this is an out-of-process premature closure, but indeed, in the current Wikiversity climate, I do not seem to have "a snowball's chance in hell of" ensuring proper process administration. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The snowball clause refers to the selective deletion of on page out of 300(?) pages with the same problem. A proposal to remove all unsourced pages in Student Projects would be a new topic and that would require a new RFD proposal, as stated in {{Archive top}}
Also, Major rivers in India is a subset of the bigger problem at Student Projects. It would have taken you less time to add a new topic to RFD on Student Projects, than it did for me to revert my closure of this topic. {{Archive top}} instructed you to open a new project. By inserting text into the closed topic, you obligated me to unclose it. I think you are deliberately trying to make things difficult for me.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should have numbered the reasons for deletion. You are right that 1) a complete lack of sourcing alone would probably be not grounds enough for deletion. But there is 2) The reader does not learn anything they could not have learned in Wikipedia => no value for the reader. Wikiversity is not a duplicate of Wikipedia (of W: List of major rivers of India); it is especially not a bad duplicate of Wikipedia. If the page was someone's half-decent attempt to write a sourced encyclopedic article, I would have probably let it be, but as it stands, this text is not worth anyone's reading time, and if it was merely an exercise in writing, it should have stayed on the local hard drive. I feel I am kind enough to this text and its author in agreeing that this can be moved to draft archive. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Near all RFD nominations are selective in that there nearly always exist many other pages with the same or similar problem that were not yet nominated. Once multiple RFDs confirm that the problem is indeed deletion-worthy/worthy of moving out of mainspace, we may even use speedy deletion nomination, given Wikiversity's traditional RFD-phobia. (I am happy to use RFD, but I go along with WV RFD-phobia and use speedy delete as far as possible, which I feel is administratively not so nice.) --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Complex Systems Digital Campus/E-Laboratory on complex computational ecosystems/Members of the ECCE e-lab[edit source]

I noticed a recent edit in the archives and stumbled upon an unanswered question by user:MGA73.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The linked page shows a list of laboratory members and their photo portraits (photos of faces). Such a thing does not seem to be particularly educational, and no big loss ensues by deletion. On the other hand, if this group of people wants to use Wikiversity to contribute research or educational material, this kind of page could be kindly tolerated. I do not really know what to do here. What is the precedent or similar previous RFD cases? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a copyright problem and possibly a privacy issue.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page was created by User:Collet = Pierre Collet, who, believing the page, is one of three representatives of the group. Presumably, if these people did not want to be so published, they would not have agreed to Pierre's creating the page? Therefore, as for privacy, should we assume a problem unless some of the members depicted contacts us, or should we rather assume Pierre Collet knew what he was doing? Pierre Collet's last edit was on 5 July 2021. Many of the images were uploaded by User:Pallamidessi in 2014, per Special:Contributions/Pallamidessi. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am OK with keeping it as is.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.


Module:No globals[edit source]

Replaced by the strict library of Scribunto extension. --Liuxinyu970226 (discuss • contribs) 11:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion of unused and deprecated Module. --mikeu talk 01:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done Module deleted. --mikeu talk 03:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion&oldid=2623476"