The current justification for the page is this: "Please do not delete this page because it might help "protect" the subpages." Let me explain why I don't think so.
Feel free to fix this problem, but only after you arrange to work with the authors. Meanwhile the top page should stay, not because I might delete the subpages, but because whoever follows us. I have one recent case where the same mistake was made by entirely different people who I believe were working years apart. Just to be safe, the Pi should stay. I simple and non-destructive task would be to put top pages over all these transclusions. We are all aware of this problem, but in three years somebody else might come along and do what I did. We don't want to lose the people who are using these transclusions: Their projects are exactly what Wikiversity was designed to support. I wasted a great deal of time on these transclusions, and don't want somebody else to make the same mistake.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for Pi, the problem is already solved: its two subpages (Pi/Real cosine function/Definition and Pi/Zero of cosine/Introduction/Section) now contain a message generated by Template:Modular math. Since it is a template, its text can be subsequently refined to contain more detail or to link to a page containing more explanation. The text is at the top of e.g. Pi/Real cosine function/Definition and will be read earlier than the visitor of this page figures out to click on the Pi link at the top of the page. If you think the template text needs an expansion, we can do it. By contrast, the text at Pi is not made via a template would need to be repeated at the base pages of the various module pages, a poor design. (The modular math has a single author, as fas as I know, User:Bocardodarapti.) --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already had that discussion with User:Bocardodarapti. If he opposes the templates, he can let us know (he has been pinged, and I can contact him as well), but he should also be considerate--consider needs of people other than himself, the need to understand the purpose of all those sometimes small module. From what I remember from the Colloquium(?) discussion, other people supported making the pages more clear; there was even some support to move the pages to "Modular math/" prefix, which is a much larger intervention that just placing an explanatory template at the top. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added some content, so I suppose that this either remain main namespace or be moved to Draft namespace. I am ok with either, but i respect consensus. limitless peace. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 18:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My sole reason for wanting Pi is so I can place a notice on that page warning people not to touch two subpages a that for some reason are being used as templates (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Pi/Real_cosine_function/Definition.) This community knows about the subpages, but someone who comes along a couple of years from now might repeat two or three mistakes that we (mostly I) recently made with subpages similar to this one. All we need to do with the current Pi is to remove the deletion template Template:rfd.
There is a documented history of the community making exactly this same mistake, losing knowledge of the mistake as old users become inactive and are replaced by new ones who don't know about problem: Look at this history page In 21 December 2013, Atcovi moved a page to userspace and then had to move it back. Had he left a message, I wouldn't have repeated his mistake 9 years later. I put forth two strong reasons for not deleting this page:
The Wikipedia policy on page deletions is that there is no deletion without a consensus to delete. By making it clear that I wanted this page in mainspace, I guaranteed that there would be no consensus to delete. Pi should never have been placed on this Requests for Deletion.
My second argument is simply the merits of keeping Pi, with its warning about the subpage-templates: Nine years ago somebody moved a subpage-template under Pi into userspace, and then had to move it back. What is wrong with leaving a note on Pi to ensure that nobody will this same mistake in the future? --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mainspace as essentially a blank page, but allow users to add content on the page provided the warning about the template-subpages remains intact. (slight change in vote)--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We might wish to turn this into the broader question of what to do with stubs that were created before the use of stubs became unofficially deprecated. There has never been a general discussion on this topic and there are many such stubs at the top of mainspace (I also added an "invite essay" section.)--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 08:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I opened Wikiversity:Colloquium#Minimum useful content, January 2024, to discuss this class of items (stubs, substubs), but there was not much input. I will note that "learning outcomes are scarce" is not a new criterion.
In #Ukulele, there is "I have no objection -- feel free to delete [...]" from you, which I interpreted as "abstain" rather than "oppose", which would give us 2:0 with quorum of 3; is this interpretation wrong? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put it this way: I created template {{Pagemove announcement}} so I could quickly move weak pages into userspace. I created Draft:Archive so I could quickly move weak collaborative pages into draftspace. All this was intended to make WV more user-friendly for people who want to learn-by-doing (where doing means writing on a wiki.) I created {{callforcontributions}} so I could strengthen stubs in such a way as to encourage new users to make that first edit, which might entice them into becoming active WV editors. I delete close to a 100 pages/week in an effort to make Wikiversity cleaner an more inviting to new users (count them here). I see no strong reason to delete well-constructed stubs, and see no reason why I should delete them when we have plenty of others capable of doing that. If nobody deletes these stubs, Category:Candidates for speedy deletion will be so full that it becomes useless to me, and I will stop deleting altogether. Ukalele had an invitation to list ukalele youtube links, so I viewed it as a way to entice new users. If the community has a different vision for Wikiversity, fine. I have other things I can do with my time.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 09:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Polansky: I hate to keep beating the same horse, but here's two more reasons why this effort to delete stub pages like Openness and Ukulele are not doing us any good:
Here is something at least 50 times more important: Category:Proposed deletions. It's 70 pages that we both could be moving out of mainspace right now. I guarantee at least 50 of them do more harm than either of the pages we are currently discussing:
No strong view from me - happy for community to decide. But, for the record, I've added some learning outcomes and learning tasks since the RFD. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c05:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This voting effort failed the way elections in third-world countries failed
Strong oppose - is second Guy. This appears to be a good faith contribution to the creative commons. A draft: namespace exists. Some used mental effort and time to create this - and as Guy noted "deleting wastes valuable time." - which I (agree with) read/(personally) interpret or extend this idea as "deleting [this good faith contribution to the Creative Commons] wastes valuable time [of both the original creator and anyone else who might use mental effort to create similar content]. [and may also discourage others from making good faith contributions to Creative Commons knowing that good faith contributions may be tossed into the metaphorical rubbish bin of non-existence]" That is my own interpretation of that way of thinking. I hope Creative Commons contributors will feel like their time and efforts are valued. It seems that is one reason the [[Draft:]] namespace may exist. bless up! Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 08:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do not need a "voting" section; each post is automatically a combination of vote and discussion. My position is to delete "Openness" as well as any page that meets the WV:Deletion criterion of "learning outcomes are scarce". The lenient above approach provides a templated recipe to create near-worthless pages in volume. One would proceed as follows: pick a large list of topics, for each topic, create a substub page with a link to Wikipedia, a templated invitation to write essays on the topic and an templated invitation to add YouTube videos on the topic. This is not good. A page should at least have some YouTube videos, not only invitation to add them, and the page should have at least one essay, not only invitation to add essays. Otherwise, Wikiversity can be flooded with trivial and nearly worthless pages, which to a limited extent has already happened. About waste of time: once we agree that stubs meeting "learning outcomes are scarce" (as per guideline) should be deleted, there will be no more time wasted by discussions, but rather, these pages can be swiftly and unbureaucratically deleted/moved-to-userspace/moved-to-draft-space. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(A response to changes by Jtneill) Even after the update, despite a newly added section called "Learning outcomes", the page seems nearly useless to me. It contains almost no statements to learn from and three(?) external links to learn from, one of which is in the External links section. The page does not define its central concept of "openness" and leaves it to the reader to define it. The page is not about a single thing or concept either. On one hand, it mentions Stallman's free software (which per Stallman is all about freedom, not openness), on the other hand, it mentions the radical and arguably insane concept of people having no secrets, a violation of personal privacy and not aligned with Stallman's philosophy at all. In "See also", we get "Open academia", which is yet another concept. Is the page also about Popper's "open society"? Are "open borders" included? One could try to get a definition from Wikipedia: Openness (not linked from Wikiversity), but the Wikipedia page, while featuring a definition, is incoherent. To wit, the psychology part "openness to experience" has little to do with the quasi-definition "Openness is an overarching concept or philosophy that is characterized by an emphasis on transparency and collaboration", let alone that "overarching concept" is no genus proper and the quoted item is no definition proper. What these disparate Wikipedia items have in common is the word "openness" and no concept. I struggle to understand how a learner could genuinely learn from the Wikiversity page. As before, I am fine with deletion as well as moving to user space and moving to draft archive. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see two reasons for the failure of the previous discussion to reach a consensus. One involves the question of what I call "well designed stubs", especially those that have recently been edited by active users. The the other involves Draft:Archive/2024. While this space has not been officially recognized by the community, we can fill it now and delete everything if it turns out to do more harm than good... PLACE YOUR COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW and/or cast a brief "vote" in the voting section with the understanding that you can change your vote.
draftify - move to draft namespace. or keep in main namespace. either is OK with me. this seems like content created in good faith. i support changing draft policy and if this is moved to draft namespace then keeping this in draft namespace indefinitely until it is developed to be a resource that should be in main namespace - or have it be in draft namespace to help spark educational/learning/research ideas and open mindedness for perpetuity. limitless peace. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 05:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I move to close because this page is being moved to Draft:Archive/2024/Openness. That is a different space, making it a different deletion request. Draft-archive space is an experimental project, one purpose of which is to preserve the history of Wikiversity. Nobody is going to judge Wikiversity by something that is clearly labeled as an archive. Also, according to special:permalink/2614713#Wikipedia's_deletion_policy, we need a consensus to delete, and no such consensus exists or is likely to exist b/c two strongly favor keeping it.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to delete this (or move to user space or draft space) since the learning outcomes are scarce (WV:Deletions). As a Wikipedia stub, this would be fine, but in Wikiversity, there should be at least a iota of added value over Wikipedia. But that is not the case: instead, we get a paragraph (4 sentences) tracing to Wikipedia, a link to Wikipedia, and that's it; no further reading and no external links.
Why bother at all: the more low-value pages there are at Wikiversity, the more editors feel encouraged to create more of them, and the more get created, and the more the readers get the impression that there is no value in arriving to Wikiversity. And if this ends up in the Draft space, other editors later browsing the Draft space can get the message of "create something that does not merely duplicate Wikipedia, add at least some subjective element or something, add some interesting further reading/external links; create some unique differentiator, even if a small one."
Delete There is hardly any content here and anything here can be recreated easily, as it's basically just a photo, a definition, and "Put some YouTube links here later". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯17:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what this means; the above discussion was not moved anywhere. Above, I see a closure ("Closed with decision to delete--Guy vandegrift [...]), and I implemented the closure by moving the page to userspace. If anyone disagrees with my implementation of the closure, feel free to reopen this RFD on Ukulele by removing the "Archive top" and "Archive bottom" templates from above and indicating that you consider this RFD still ongoing. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Polansky: Look at the instructions above: Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further. The discussion was closed and we were waiting for a volunteer to delete it. I am trying to keep this page organized, and repeated refusal to go along with me on this will get you blocked.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsing for convenience. Please go to talk page to discuss collapse policy.
Obviously for speedy deletion. But since the author disagrees, let us run this through the overhead of RFD, unless an admin wants to speedy delete it and enforce the speedy deletion (or move to user space).
The page is for an alleged organization, but a Google search does not show the organization to exist.
The content of the page is not organized by any common principle other than that it is content "by Yuuki".
If the server admin can remove Disallow: /wiki/User: from robots.txt, then moving the page to User:Yuuki (Wikimedian) would be a solution. As I pointed out on the talk page, independent studies by Wikiversity users should be indexed by search engines. Alternatively, research by users could be allowed only under a new namespace such as Lab:. (That would allow only real-world schools like University of Canberra to use the mainspace, though.) --Yuuki (Wikimedian) (discuss • contribs) 12:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not count a trivial implementation of a test for being a prime number as "independent studies by Wikiversity users" or "research by users". The policy is WV:Deletions. If it was at Prime number test or the like and discussed different approaches (not only the most trivial one), I could argue there is perhaps some minimum value in having the page at all; but then, there would have to be a iota of originality or added value beyond what is already at W:Primality test, especially W:Primality_test#C,_C++,_C#,_D. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See w:independent study. I think your argument applies to Wikipedia, Wikibooks, and standard Wikiversity materials, but not to lab pages by individuals on Wikiversity (which I argue should be in a searchable location). Learning (which I also call "research" from a kindergartner's perspective) always begins with knowing only a little. Wikiversity should also be for children and adults who have only a child's level of knowledge. --Yuuki (Wikimedian) (discuss • contribs) 13:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether it matters, and perhaps someone will revert me, but to my mind, the following statements from the user page is relevant: "In 2003, Yuuki went online at age nine when his father signed up for Yahoo! BB. He began his career as a troll on TheBBS under the handle Aku no Zurihaki[4] (悪のずりはき, lit. Zurihaki of evil) and later Seizan.[5]". --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, I'm not a troll anymore, of course; what I was doing 21 years ago, when I was 9, is completely irrelevant. I am very serious about this matter. Please refute my actual opinion. No personal attacks, please.
Perhaps "research" is neglected in Wikiversity compared to education and learning. As a long term Wikipedia editor myself, I can understand the discomfort of having a page like Yuuki in the mainspace. However, I thought Wikiversity should also be for that very purpose. That would differentiate Wikiversity from Wikibooks. --Yuuki (Wikimedian) (discuss • contribs) 13:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already pointed out the problem of User: not being indexed by search engines. I've proposed Lab: etc. above. If we consider Wikiversity as a possible alternative to traditional universities in the Internet age, user pages are inferior to traditional lab pages for that reason. --Yuuki (Wikimedian) (discuss • contribs) 15:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing wrong with this as a teaching idea, but am a strong believer in organizing pages under comprehensive top pages in mainspace. The page Why study math? has two subpages: Why study math?/Using interactive games and Why study math?/Using manipulatives. There is strength in numbers: People who read either one of these subpages will be interested in reading Why study math?/Yuuki. There is no harm being in mainspace as a subpage. According to Wikiversity:Statistics/2023/03, the page Computer Networks/Ipconfig/DNS Cache Options got over 15,000 pageviews last March. Mainspace subpages are searched by Google. Also, when funding in plasma physics dried up, I managed to get faculty positions in math and science education. I grew to despise the field as a sort of false science (nobody wanted controlled studies on whether their teaching ideas work.) But I have enough credentials in math and science education to defend your page. It's no worse that the stuff I saw published in the refereed journals.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the timespan between Yuuki's first edit on 03:47, 24 February 2024 to the proposed deletion deletion on 02:07, 25 February 2024 was less than 24 hours! Can anybody explain or defend this?
I am removing the proposed deletion and closing this discussion.
I am moving the page to draftspace. Even though we routinely start pages in mainspace, Yuuki should not have moved it out of draftspace if an administrator put it there.
I log my objection to this being closed so fast, a day after it was opened, without giving it a week to collect input. But I will not reopen this discussion. Next time around, let us do better. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.
done! (faster than I thought
This case is an exception to principle(s) that I hold dearly: (1) Users should have maximum freedom over their userspace, (2) everyone is welcome, even those with little chance of making meaningful contributions to Wikiversity. Ironically, Ramosama acts in good faith and is highly competent. But the number of pages and template transclusions are so disruptive that everything must be deleted. YDoneI used User:Ramosama to list all the subpages. A list of templates created by Ramosama was listed on User Talk:Ramosama. When that list was complete, the systematic deletion was easier to manage.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 00:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This could have been handled without deletion: 1) one would move the templates to user space and 2) one would change the transclusion code to transclude the new template location rather than the templates. Nonetheless, unless someone argues that there was something valuable in these pages (based on my memory, they appeared rather useless), there seems to be no need to have them undeleted. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was that the resource was huge. Also, Dave repeated warned the author that the project was too cumbersome to be of any use. And, some of the templates were not in templatespace but within the project, and I had no time to look for them. And the author/project was dormant for 4 years.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 21:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not describe the collection of Ramosama teplates and pages as "huge" (neither in the number, not in the item size), but as per my comments above, I do not challenge the deletion. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page originated as a copy of a Wikipedia article and it still looks like one; created on 22 July 2011 by Geofferybard with the edit summary "Imported from en.wikipedia.org page of same name please see attribution history as of 7/21/2011". But Wikiversity is not a duplicate to Wikipedia, and there is nothing Wikiversity-specific in that page.
I can move the page and am willing to do so, but I am not an admin and someone will have to delete the remaining redirect (I think only admins can move in such a way that no redirect remains). Moreover, I wanted to give people a chance to oppose the deletion/move, hence this RFD. So I will wait a couple of days or a week to see whether someone thinks this should stay in the mainspace. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Yes, we should do nothing for a week. Thanks for curbing my enthusiasm for getting things resolved ASAP. (2) I can move pages since I do it so often that it is automatic. If you ever want to do it yourself, just leave a note on my talk page reminding me to remove the redirect (or put the request on the RFD or request Custodial action.) Also I like to put {{subst:Pagemove announcement}} on the user's talk page, but now that it is being done so often, people will know where to look for such pages.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell since I do not know the rule of archiving in Wikiversity. Should we use the Wiktionary rules, there should be at least a week pause between closure and archiving; I like these rules, but these are Wiktionary rules, not Wikiversity rules. The longer the delay between closure and archiving, the greater the chance of editors to log objections after closure, and the greater the evidence of consensus for the chosen manner of closure; of course, this works with diminishing returns. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 18:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A one week delay between closure and archiving is a good idea. Also, I was sloppy when proposing to archive when I meant to propose closure of the discussion. Let's keep this thread open (unclosed) to see what others have to say.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to en:User:Bonadea the user have been around for many years. I doubt many have heard of that religion and will be offended by that. I think it is more likely people have heard about w:Muhammad and as far as I know users are allowed to use variants of Muhammad as username. Also w:Michael (archangel) is related to religion but still we allow users to use the name Michael. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 19:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our user name policy :
"Names of religious figures such as "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", or "Allah", which may offend other people's beliefs"
The main point is the above all names are God's of religious.Means Allah is God of religion muslim,Buddha is God of religion Buddhism ,Bonadea is God of religion Bonadea , all these are no doubt against our username policy.
Clearly said in our username policy Jehovah,Buddha,Allah are against our username policy,including Bonadea all are God names.
Michael ,Muhammad are names ,we can understand those are muslims,in some point of view, these usernames may be accepted or prohibited .
Bonadea , Allah, Buddha,are all God's of religious, so 100% prohibited usernames as per our Username policy.
Once some users do the mistake,it will continue by some more users ,So what is the use of our username policy.?
Lean towards delete: since these files are unused, there seems to be no loss in deleting them. If someone produces good arguments against deleting these files, I may reconsider. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unresolved questions about "what-goes-where" hinder rfd decision-making.
The following discussions were not resolved. But during the discussion one of the pages were changed significantly (often without documenting the changes in the discussion.) The result is a chaotic discussion often not based on the latest version of the page. The other discussion cannot be resolved until the 6-month rule for allowing a page to remain in draft-space is settled. If you have a page to nominate for deletion (or undeletion), but feel unresolved policy decisions preclude a resolution, please add it to the list below
There is little to learn from this page. Learning modules are promised but mostly not delivered. What has been delivered does not have enough saving graces: WikiService/101, WikiService/115, WikiService/Take a break, WikiService/Making friends and other listed at the end of WikiService. The idea is perhaps not so bad, but the execution leaves too much to wish and has been so for many years. The title "WikiService" is not particularly fit either; it is not clear what exactly the putative entity "WikiService" is supposed to be. As usual, I am okay with moving to user space or moving to Draft:Archive as an alternative. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RFD is appropriate, but prod would have been better: The project has (1) multiple authors, making it a candidate for Draft:Archive, (2) no recent editing, (3) low page views, and (4) lots of subpages (which makes it more trouble to delete.) The advantage of the prod is that it gives others time to defend the page and reduces our burden to carefully judge the project's merits. I support moving to Draft:Archive-Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can keep discussions open; it's just that we never know when to end them. But you are correct in suggesting that there are real advantages to using RFD instead of the prod. The RFD tends to invite too much discussion and the prod invites too little. Regarding moving versus deleting, I am only a Custodian and if a page has subpages, we have to delete one subpage at a time. We can move a large number subpages automatically. I can't remember if the limit is 30 or 100.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 21:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if some users think this page is useless and has no value, perhaps it can be moved to Draft namespace or maybe an Archive namespace should be created. Sometimes seemingly useless ideas can spark the formulation of useful ideas in others. To delete creativecommons content created in good faith rather than move it is to potentially not distracting but also so others could view it, could potentially spark the formulation of more new and valuable ideas later. Not to mention this then does not risk driving away good faith contributors because they are concerned their good faith creative commons contributions may just vanish from the commons eventually. limitless peace Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 02:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I share User:Michael Tens concern about good faith efforts. Also, we learn from our mistakes. Nothing teaches me more about my bad writing habits than reading a draft I wrote months, or even years ago. As a general rule, we should only move pages to something like Draft:Archive after they have been dormant for several months (or even a year or so.) Also, if there is only a single author, we can move it into userspace. I created Template:Pagemove announcement to place on the person's talk page, but think perhaps we should make it more friendly. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If consensus is not to delete the content then why move it? Would it not be easier just to leave it and add a template like "Outdated" or "Draft"? I doubt it would be easier to find stuff if it is moved somewhere else (draft/archive/userpage). Persoally I think if something is usefull then keep it and if not usefull then delete it. Moving it around just gives more work. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 16:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that multiple people feel uncomfortable deleting good-faith low-value content , but they are okay with moving the content to user space or draft space, neither of which are searched by default. And I am happy to go along, since I desire to clean up the mainspace so that Wikiversity gives a little better impression as a project. Moving low-value content out of mainspace does improve the average value/quality of mainspace, and it is mainspace that visitors find by Googling, clicking "Random", etc. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a long history of moving material into userspace on the grounds that Wikiversity is a teaching wiki. You wouldn't think of having a college, or even elementary school where students do not write anything. If you wish, I could go back a couple of years into the history of various userpages to document this practice. To me practice is more important than policy: What does "limited useful content" mean? In my opinion, bad prose is extremely useful to the person who writes it and then see it on their userpage a year later. So without a deliberate decision to change that practice, we must adhere to it.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The potential problem with this seems to be that pages in User: namespace seem like they could be much more easily lost (effectively) than if content was moved from main namespace to Draft: or a potentially created Archive: namespace; if that was done, then those pages could be searched for using random functions or organized utilizing thoughtful categories like "Category:Draft Chemistry Pages" or "Category:Archived Physics Content". However, moving pages that are good faith content to User: namespace is better than deleting good faith creative commons contributions, it seems. Deleting good faith creative commons contributions seems likely go send the implicit messages (to some) like (something to the effect of), "we don't value your contributions", "we do not care if you spend your mental effort contributing to the Creative Commons, we are OK if you feel like you've wasted your time doing so since we are deleting your good faith contributions because you chose not to take extra time to turn it into something that is more impressive". Maybe some individuals really like having their good faith contributions deleted though? Not everyone would feel that way necessarily, but as evidenced by the linear (rather than exponential growth) of this wiki, some might. I know that is a significant reason why I stopped contributing much recently. Even if a lot of content is moved to userspace, it seems like a decent amount of pages (that might have been created and edit in good faith) are being deleted when I check recent changes periodically. oh well. maybe most of what i see being deleted is just blatant spam. uncertain. limitless peace. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 07:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example of two established administrators (Dave and Mu301) taking great pain to keep a stub alive. It just came to my attention because it's up for a speedy deletion. It wouldn't hurt to delete it, but it is faster for me to Draft:Archive it than to see if any of the authors are currently active. I fully support getting pages like this off mainspace. But for that one in 10 (or 20 or 100) pages that may someday be revisited by an author, I like Draft:Archive space for now. If the community wants to delete the entire archive, I'm sure it can be done by some sort of bot (well not 100% sure...).--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About the next section: The strikout was my (Guy vandegrift's mistake): It correctly states my reason for creating Draft:Archive and its subpages. If the statement had been false, striking would have been an acceptable act because I am the true expert on my motives. The idea is for Draft:Archive to be a permanent repository of stuff that would ordinarily be deleted.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 08:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the confusion, but I struck the previous comment due to confusion as to why I created Draft:Archive. My intent was for users who take long wikibreaks to come back and pick up where they left off. Or, they might wish to simply re-read what they wrote many years ago. Also, Draft:Archive space can free Custodians from the task of undeleting such drafts.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 19:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: I posted the above under "Move to Draft:Wikiservice and link to from Draft:Archive/2024 (page) [...]" below. I did not strike out the text of my post; Guy vandegrift has striken out the text. I am struggling to understand what in the world is going on here, practice-wise and process-wise. If responses are not allowed in the "Voting" section, something is very wrong here; I have not seen anything like that in any English wiki (or Czech wiki for that matter). Nor have I see editors strike out text by others in which they found some mistakes. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Polanksky: I apologize for striking your words. It was late and I read them incorrectly: What you wrote is exactly why I created Draft:Archive space: To prevent deletion from ordinary Draft space. Sorry. Incidentally, there are other reasons for creating the space, as I discussed above. Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 08:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More comments about "Voting-space" You may state whether your vote is tentative if you wish, but that is not necessary because you can change your vote. And for that reason, you can freely change anything you say in this section. The usual wiki-rule of permanently recording all conversations more or less applies to the previous discussion section. Also, I noticed that one "vote" exceeded the 1 kilobyte limit. That's OK -- if things get out of hand we can always collapse a portion of any "votes" that get to long. Remember: You may freely edit your statement and vote in the "voting-space" that follows:--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 19:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft:Wikiservice and link to from Draft:Archive/2024 (page) (rather than having as a subpage of Draft:Archive/2024 - keeping these in the Draft: namespace (not as a sub-page) may help them to be more easily findable... additionally - perhaps pages with subpages will be moved to the draft namespace... and and there may already be many sub-pages in the draft namespace. Special:RandomRootpage/Draft can then be more useful if content that is not a sub-page in the main-namespace is moved to draft: namespace. Special:Random/Draft could find all sub-pages... but this would be a lot more to sort through (since all sub-pages intentded to be sub-pages are also included). it seems a goal potentially would be to help more developed draft content not be a needle in a haystack to find, like it might be if many draft pages are moved to be subpages of Draft:Archive/ --- I really think pages like Draft:Archive/2024 can be helpful (and linking to and categorizing all the draft pages by year) (or any other taxonomy (?)/method) can be extremely useful if we want those interested in contributing having an easier time to find Creative commons content already started... or even just to have idea sparks from maybe. Just food for though. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 08:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I understand. I am OK with Draftifying page, moving to draft namespace. I respect diversity of thought and diversity of opinion about how draft namespace is organized. I also support changing draft policy so that pages can be kept in draft namespace indefinitely. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 05:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page has a characteristic "texture" or "style" typical of ChatGPT and other LLMs. As a result, its production has required very little effort and does not significantly contribute learning by doing on part of the author. It contains misleading statements, e.g. the notion that Bill Gates is the author of MS Office products, which are works of many people, not primarily Bill Gates. I think Wikiversity should not host output of LLMs that does not serve to explore the LLMs themselves and is not attributed to them. Neither "authors"/inserters of that output nor Wikiversity readers benefit.
This page needs to stay because it is part of a large project that we do not fully understand. If the whole project is bad, we need to examine the project. There is no consensus on what to do with LLMs, and reaching such a consensus requires perhaps of 5 people.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WV:Deletions is codified in terms of "learning outcomes are scarce" and that is arguably the case here, and therefore, my deletion argument is an interpretation of an existing guideline. If we know someone who manages the "larger project", we can contact them/ask for input. I am not saying the whole writing/research-in-literature project is bad; I am saying that running the task through LLM is not a valid exercise in writing/research-in-literature, especially when no literature is cited at all. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we need to limit LLM input for the simple reason that LLMs can generate Megabytes of text in a few seconds. Even if the WMF is willing to host the memory, an excess of unnecessary LLM will dilute the quality of Wikiversity. How many kilobytes of LLM are currently being stored by this project?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. When I pick a different page from Digital Media Concepts, e.g. Digital Media Concepts/Autism (ASD) & Social Media, it does not look like LLM-generated, and it has various links. There are certain signs of LLM, such as a peculiar chunkization/itemization/fine-grained structuring that humans hardly ever do to that extent, though some may. So my motion is to respond reactively to suspect pages as they appear and when they appear, and signal to others and to the project that we do not want that kind of content if only because it results in scarce learning outcomes. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I decided it was only fair to let Gemini put in its "two cents". The answer was not very reassuring. I got a long answer, and asked Gemini to condense it. The summary was a concise and accurate summary of the long answer: "(How to spot) chatbot text in Wikiversity: check for factual errors, unnatural language, generic style, and repetitive content. Review edit history for new users adding large text chunks. Use detection tools with caution, as they're not foolproof. Be critical and verify information yourself." This is not reassuring!--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting on Digital Media Concepts/BILL GATES (William Henry Gates III) (fAILED ATTEMPT AT A VOTE)
Move to Draft:Archive/2024. Changed vote from Keep in present location (subpage in mainspace), but monitor for excessive ChatBot use. I will monitor for the excessive verbiage that a chatbot might create, and also contact Michael Ten to verify that he is OK with archive-draft space.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft:Archive or move to userspace or delete: something that either was written by a LLM or looks like it was written with the help of a LLM or with heavy assistence from it has no business to be in the mainspace. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 18:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vote here if you wish/ Or, you can remove the Archive top/bottom}} templates, delete this announcement and continue as you wish.--14:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC) --Guy vandegrift
Fresh start
I don't know the Wikiversity terminology, but in the English Wiktionary terminology, a closure is a process step that includes execution of the decided action; and thus, in this case, a closure would include moving the page to draft space. Then, one would wait a week before archiving the discussion by moving it to archive (in the English Wiktionary, discussions are moved to the talk page, unlike in the English Wikiversity). --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was given a prod that has expired. One or two people edited it after the prod was placed. It is a learning experience to write the page. Dave had no objection to it. So IMHO, at the very least it belongs in draft space. Here I am just logging the fact that I removed the prod. I will leave a note on their talk pages suggesting it might get moved off the top of namespace. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This case is not so simple as other nearly-worthless pages that I am sending to deletion. The page Space fleet academy/Pre-orientation program at least has a list of YouTube videos, and one could learn something by perusing these videos in sequence. On the other hand, I struggle to understand the scope of "Space fleet academy" and its subpages. My initial response is that I am not clear whether this should be deleted and what the reasoning is. I suspect a good case for deletion could be made. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made first contact with the author, who is playing the satire to the hilt (if it is satire.) Let's give a week to see what he does with it. If there are no improvements, it should go into userspace (since it has a single author.)--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 11:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
collapsing a discussion that was long because it was a new and complex question
While going through unused files, I was reminded of another lingering issue.
Between 2009 and 2011, a course at w:Mahidol University International College required students to create user pages on Wikiversity and upload pictures and/or video of themselves to complete homework assignments. One typical example of these pages is User:Netac~enwikiversity. The course appears to have stopped using Wikiversity after 2011, but most of the content created by the students is still present.
I'm curious whether it might be appropriate for us to bulk delete the user / user talk pages and related media which were created as part of these assignments. I don't see any educational value in retaining these pages, and many of them contain personal information (like names and photos) which the students may not have expected to remain online and accessible to the public indefinitely.
I haven't assembled a full list of the pages involved, but there are some partial lists at:
If students are not active then I agree that they should perhaps be deleted. If they were asked to create the page as a part of their study they may not have realised or wanted their info to remain here forever. If they ever return they can always ask to have page restored. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 14:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is to be gained by deleting these files? As user pages, they don't show up in a search. Deleted pages aren't removed from the database, so it doesn't save any space on the server. I'm having trouble seeing the benefit of deleting this content. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It protects the privacy of the users who created these pages. As noted above, many of them contain personal information (like names and photos) which the students may not have expected to remain online and accessible to the public indefinitely. Excluding the pages from external search indexing doesn't make them inaccessible; it just makes them harder to find. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 21:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So far one comment that "I think such disscussion should better take place at Wikimedia Forum. Ultimately it's still a local issue and needs to resolved locally though." --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 21:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just de-wikified the cot/cob collapse because now is the time to decide. My only comment is that removing all these pages will require a great deal of time. Were students required to post personal information? This user gave only first, last, ID#, and nickname. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 21:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I just deleted five, and to took very little time or effort. I will pause, out of caution, and also because if I don't lots of breaks, I will get bored, lose focus, and forget to do things like check for recent history--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 00:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished the deletion of 42 userpages. A few were already deleted. Several of the users came back and blanked the page. I will give this few days to see if there are anymore and propose that we close the discussion and delete this list of usernames before archiving. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 22:18, 30 March 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]
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 YDone.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 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]
Draftify i propose this be moved to draft namespace. or keep as is. i see potential for this to spark creative ideas for other good faith Creative Commons content creation. Moving to draft namespace and potentially soft linking from an organizational archive page (ideally not as a sub-page) seems acceptable and sufficient. Willingness to not delete good faith contributions to the Creative Commons is greatly appreciated. limitless peace. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 17:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC) ... @Michael Ten: This page is safer in Draft:Archive/2024/OpenOffice.org than it is in Draft:OpenOffice.org, so unless you object, I will consider your vote as a blessing to move it into Draft:Archive space.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 20:19, 11 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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
My vote: Move to draft archive or Delete; I prefer non-deletion since then we will be able to point to this as an example of a page that has no business being in the mainspace. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:32, 28 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}}
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]
ND is not a valid license on Wikiversity and there are no pages/files using the license so I suggest to delete the template and the category. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 15:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done I used User:Ramosama to list all the subpages. A list of templates created by Ramosama was listed on User Talk:Ramosama. When that list was complete, the systematic deletion was easier to manage.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 00:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Support deletion of all of these unused files. --mikeu talk 01:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
