Wikiversity talk:Deletions
Latest comment: 3 months ago by Guy vandegrift in topic Proposed modifications
Comments on section titled Wikiversity:Deletions#Deletion templates
[edit source]This is new section, written by me. Your thoughts by creating a new section with your username as the title. What is under your username is under your full control. Edit/delete as you wish. Be very brief in another person's space, as they have permission to delete what you wrote.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 11:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Guy vandegrift
[edit source]I am not quite happy with the section on Proposed deletion. For one thing, I don't know exactly what happens when the deadline for making changes passes.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 11:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Omphalographer
[edit source]- FYI, the {{delete}} template doesn't need to be substituted. {{prod}} needs
subst:to insert the current date, but other deletion templates don't. - What would be nice would be if the {{prod}} template could be given a deletion reason as an argument, just like how {{delete}} can. I've been inserting reasons in
<!-- HTML comments -->on some pages I've proposed for deletion, but having a way to make that visible on the page would be even better. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 21:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)- Thanks for catching my unnecessary use of
subst:on {{tl:delete}}. Regarding the {{prod}} template, I suppose the purpose was to confine the conversation to the talk page. It probably sounded like a good idea at the time: The editors would thrash out their differences off Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion. The problem is that there is almost never more than one author that we deal with.(The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guy vandegrift (talk • contribs) )
- Thanks for catching my unnecessary use of
Voting
[edit source]I don't know if this new section needs to be approved by the community (before retirement I was too busy to pay attention to rules, which is why WV was my favorite WMF wiki! Either way, feel free to vote or abstain. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 11:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Support as person making the proposal--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 05:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)- Not opposed. I think "at the top" needs to be after an introduction paragraph, and the introduction paragraph needs to mention to see below for detailed explanations. Including __TOC__ above the content would be another or additional approach. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Seems simpler and I seriously doubt it causes problems. Sounds like a high-probability net good to me. Addemf (discuss • contribs) 19:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Proposed modifications
[edit source]I proposed the following at https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Colloquium#Expanding_WV%3ADeletions_with_Moving_to_Draft_archive
- "==Moving to Draft archive==
- "A page that meets the criteria for deletion from the main resource namespace that was most likely created in good faith and is not blatant spam should be moved to the "Draft:" namespace instead of being deleted, unless an overriding rationale for deletion prevails such as the page being offensive, copyright violation, spam, and/or so forth. The rational for this is as follows. Not deleting Creating Commons Content created in good faith is fruitful to the Creative Commons as a whole, database storage is not reduced by deleting content, and there is generally no harm moving good faith content to the Draft: namespace. Additionally, whether someone created good faith Creative Commons content (related to teaching, learning, or research) to hone their writing and wiki editing skills, simply to plant the seed of an idea for others to build off of later, or so forth, moving such content to the "Draft:" namespace can give others an opportunity to develop the content later, use the content as food for thought that might spark new, useful, or novel ideas, and/or possibly another creative fruitful intellectual processes related to Creative Commons content creation not described here.
Also, I started Template:Draftify recently.
limitless peace Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 17:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Great suggestion @Michael Ten. I've lightly revised the current guideline to more clearly incorporate moving content to the user or draft namespace as an option and added the {{draftify}} template (it could also be added to the nutshell). Perhaps, could you review and suggest any further, specific changes? I don't think I'd support going as far as requiring that pages be moved to draft, but I do think we should be highlighting this option. Perhaps also consider how the distinction between {{Pagemove announcement}} and {{draftify}} can be sharpened. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. i was able to see your edits here i think. https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity%3ADeletions&diff=2611619&oldid=2605804 bless up. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 03:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I also support this proposal. From Wikiversity_talk:Drafts#policy_and_page_change_suggestion, it seems that User:Addemf also supports it. (@Addemf: as you can see, our conversations are "all over the place"). If I count votes, I get 4 votes (Guy, Michael, Jtneill, and Addemf) all unofficially in support.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 23:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- We seem to have polling places all over Wikiversity on this motion. My latest "unofficial" tally is 3 votes in solidly favor (Guy, Michael, Jtneill) and 2 votes essentially in favor (Dan's is tentative and Addemf is relying on intuition)--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. i was able to see your edits here i think. https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity%3ADeletions&diff=2611619&oldid=2605804 bless up. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 03:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)