Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion

(Redirected from Wikiversity:RFD)
Latest comment: 8 hours ago by Guy vandegrift in topic Ukulele

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

  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 --~~~~

Undeletion requests edit

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.

Wikiversity:Deletion Convention 2024 edit

@Dan Polansky, MGA73, Dave Braunschweig, Atcovi, and Omphalographer: Also will pinging @Koavf, Michael Ten, MathXplore, AP295, and Jtneill: @Leutha: @Mu301:

Feel free to ping any other active and useful editor here: 

This is actually a page-creation request. If you look at everything on this page or after #Nation, you will see that 5 out of 6 discussions are bogged down by confusion over where to put mediocre and low-quality efforts. User:Dan Polansky and I almost simultaneously called for a pause for all deletions until this gets sorted out.

I think we can move the discussion to Colloquium rather than creating a dedicated page: the forum is well suited for that. My reasoning is usually based on Wikiversity:Deletions (which I never edited) and its "Resources may be eligible for proposed deletion when education objectives and learning outcomes are scarce, and objections to deletion are unlikely"; I also support (and don't recall objecting to) moving pages to userspace out of kindness instead of outright deletion. Admittedly, I usually ignore the "objections to deletion are unlikely" part since it does not make sense: if objections are unlikely, there is no need for a full RFD; full RFD is there to give people a change to air objections. So I focus on "learning outcomes are scarce". --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 16:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there is a fear about lack of genuine consensus about the kind of nominations I am making (for deletion/move-to-userspace proposals), anyone can review e.g. Student Projects/PhotoTalks, User:Leutha/Social Enterprise glossary, User:ChayaninP/Twitter Faceoff1, User:Stivi10/Trap, User:Jomar.villar/Number Systems, User:Neposlusan/Other views, among the recent nominations. I think none of them belong to mainspace. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 16:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dan Polansky has put forth a Proposal that we discuss this on the Wikiversity:Colloquium. Does anybody second that motion?Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 16:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support it in as much as I don't see a compelling reason for this new proposed page. No strong feelings either way, tho. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dan Polansky: feel free to start the conversation on Wikiversity:Colloquium. After you do that, I will place a note at the top of this page redirecting users to Wikiversity:Colloquium#Whatever_title_you_give_it. If there are no objections, I will keep this discussion open to serve as a landing page for all the invites I sent out.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 21:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand the scope of this page is to request deletion rather than any other actions. Increasing the scope of this place is possibly confusing. Proposals about the deletion procedure should be done at a generic discussion venue like the Wikiversity:Colloquium or specific talk pages like Wikiversity talk:Requests for Deletion. Since many users would be watching the Colloquium, I support moving this discussion to there. The new proposed page can be used as a redirect to the colloquium archives once the discussion has ended. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 01:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MathXplore: My poor choice of proposed title managed to convey the exact opposite of my proposed "Deletion Convention": We need to look at deletions, userspace, draftspace, subpace, and even page-moves as part of an overall strategy. The real questions involve how we organize Wikiversity. Here is a list of questions we should ask ourselves:
  1. Where do we put sincere but flawed student efforts? If we put them in userspace, we remove all hope of students reading each others work and collaborating. We could solve that problem by having students place abstracts of their efforts somewhere in mainspace, but that strikes me as too complicated.
  2. How do we solve the problem associated with advanced technical articles? We don't have any referees, and I for one do not enjoy reading an article that may or may not be nonsense.
  3. How do we judge student efforts intended to be art, or satire? Universities teach poetry (even MIT has creative writing classes), and how are we supposed to judge poetry? Wikipedia has an entire article devoted to a poet who is apparently most famous for one of the world's shortest poems, with "Fleas" as the title and only two lines ("Adam" & "Had 'em".) I don't think we want to be debating the quality of student efforts, ever. Instead we should focus on bad taste, harm to young readers, and not angering people on other wikis.
  4. To what extent do we take steps to prevent unfortunate outcomes that are highly unlikely? I have on several occasions looked at something I wrote many years ago and was horrified at its low quality. That was, and continues to be a learning experience and a reminder that I am incapable of writing good prose without many rewrites (and I have more than twenty refereed publications.) I know that virtually all users who stop writing on Wikiversity never return. But does that justify deleting all old prose that seems to have no value? I'm sure we can find places to put such prose. But if multiple authors are involved, userspace may not be the best place for such prose.
  5. Here's another question that needs to be answered: We are and should be beholden to the Wikimedia Foundation. To what extent do they care about low-quality pages on Wikiversity? I, for one, would like to know the answer to that question.
So when I called it a "Deletion Convention", I misspoke on the word "deletion", but I do think we need a "convention". I labeled the proposed site for discussion with the year 2024 because we have a history of failed efforts to resolve things in pages that start with "Wikiversity:foo-bar". If we fail accomplish anything, I don't want anybody looking at what we do there with high hopes. I try not to rant, but I guess I just did.Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 02:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, I think the agenda above is reasonable, and I do support the need of some kind of convention. I will be glad to join upcoming discussions at the colloquium with my availability. I hope we can accomplish something, but if we fail, then others should not look with higher hope. On the other hand, I think future participants should avoid the same failure, so I also believe some kind of navigation would be helpful (with {{historical}} or any other kind of notice template to alert the readers to not have a high hope). MathXplore (discusscontribs) 03:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MathXplore: Thanks for your support. I agree that this is not the right time to start the "convention". I will keep the red-link in the title in case anybody wants to jot down some ideas, and will contemplate a better title. In an act of desperation I left a message on User talk:Jimbo Wales. Maybe somebody high up might answer it (not Jimbo of course.) One of my counterintuitive beliefs is that tolerating low-quality pages on WV is good for WP because WV acts like a magnet for the nutcase editors. Years ago, I visited a small town in Russia that had a large military academy. The locals joked that the academy cleaned up the town because the soldiers took away all the bad girls. Maybe WP will take the same attitude (but probably not.)--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 04:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
UPDATE: Taking Gemimi's advice, I spent a long time looking for what the WMF allows Wikiversity to do on, looking at pages like ...Requests_for_comment/Shut_down_Wikiversity. I have absolutely no doubt that we are encouraged to allow student learning journals, such as already exist on WV pages like Digital Media and Information in Society/Student Journals. There is nothing controversial about posting student journals in mainspace. On the other hand, if the WV community chooses not to allow such pages, it is unlikely that the WMF would step in and force our hand. So my effort to contact the WMF through the message to Jimbo Wales was not necessary.Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 07:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I created Wikiversity:Colloquium#How to handle very-low-value pages AKA deletion and move to userspace convention; Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion seems to be a less-than-ideal place for the above discussion, since this page, from what I understand, should ideally be about individual RFD nominations. Feel free to undo my post to Colloquium; I might have misunderstood something. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 07:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Dan Polanksy. Whoever wants the have the floor can take it right here:Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 07:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've not been following the conversation, but moving a user's unfinished resources to their userspace seems reasonable to me. Where one should put their resources in general is something I'm still not clear on. I've suggested in the past that wikiversity might be better organized if users simply made a "home directory" (in mainspace, I suppose) and add their resources there. It doesn't seem like many resources are collaborative in the same way wikipedia articles are. That isn't to say users shouldn't collaborate, but perhaps discussions on talk pages are a better way to initiate collaboration here, as opposed to wikipedia's "be bold" directive. This would also resolve naming conflicts in mainspace and obviate the need for laborious cleanup efforts in the first place. Why make so much work for yourselves? AP295 (discusscontribs) 16:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, it would be trivial (for someone familiar with the wiki software) to write a script that traverses a list of "dormant" users, creating a home directory for each such user and moving their resources into that directory if those resources haven't been edited recently and don't get a lot of traffic. AP295 (discusscontribs) 16:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One variation on the idea above is to restrict "new users" from creating pages in mainspace except within their home directory. Regular users could be granted this privelage after they make however many contributions or something like that. This would tend to keep student contributions contained within their respective home directories. New users who are educators could request exceptions. I understand the appeal of having a single course for each given subject, but it would not be hard to curate good resources if they meet some standard of quality. To be clear, by "home directory" I don't mean one's userpage, but a page in mainspace, assuming this distinction is meaningful (e.g. are they searched when the user types something into the search bar?) AP295 (discusscontribs) 17:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion requests edit

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.

Thousands of unused files edit

There are thousands of unused files on Wikiversity. 5.000 can be seen on Special:UnusedFiles. There is a general clean up project on Wikiversity_talk:File_Review and one of the things discussed is unused files.

So far unused non-free files have been deleted and files without a license have also been tagged for deletion. That leaves files with a free license. So the question is what to do with those.

Unused does not always mean unusable. But if the file is not in use anywhere there is a risk that it is out of WV:Scope.

Example: The first file on the list is File:Sysop buttons.png. It is not in use and there is no links to the page. How to move forward?

  1. Should files be discussed one by one?
  2. Should there be a speedy template to add and if there are no objections after 90 7 days the file can be deleted? And if someone disagree they can remove the template and start a regular DR?
  3. Should they be taken in batches?
  4. Should we just leave all the files alone?

--MGA73 (discusscontribs) 12:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll wait to hear more from the community regarding which option(s) everyone would prefer. But regarding Option 2, I would use Proposed Deletions (90 days) vs. Speedy. We have a long history of tagging things and allowing 90 days for anyone to remove the tag if they want to keep the resource. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 19:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then 90 days. No need to make a special exception for unused files. --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 19:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking through the unused files list, I get the sense that the majority of them fall into a couple of basic categories:
  • Slide presentations and other class documents created by User:Young1lim, which should probably be indexed somewhere and kept. There's a ton of potentially valuable material here and it would be a shame to delete it. (Update: this accounts for 4264 of 5791 total unused files in the last database dump!!)
  • Graphs, diagrams, and homework assignments uploaded by ENES100 students. These are useless out of context and should be deleted.
  • Files uploaded but not used by User:Jtneill's students for Motivation and Emotion pages. These should be deleted.
  • Unused files or homework assignments from Filmmaking. These should be deleted as well.
I would hesitate to use proposed deletion for these files, as there's simply so many of them that it'd be difficult for other editors to review what's up for deletion.
Instead, as a first step, how about if we remove all of Young1lim's files from the list by creating a temporary page linking to all of his PDF uploads? Most of those files have fairly systematic names, so it should be straightforward to index them on that page. Getting those files out of the way will protect them from deletion, and should make it easier to figure out what's going on with the rest. Omphalographer (discusscontribs) 22:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: I've created a temporary list of User:Young1lim's (previously) unused files in my sandbox. After Special:UnusedFiles updates, those files should be off the list, making it easier to handle those. Omphalographer (discusscontribs) 23:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Omphalographer I do not think that a link is enough to make Special:UnusedFiles skip the files.
But I think it sounds like a good idea to take the deletions in similar batches. If they are added to categories it would be easier for users to see the files. Then files could be nominted for deletion one category at a time. --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 06:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm pretty certain the links I used should be sufficient; the files I linked to now all show my sandbox under "File usage", the same as any other file link would. It might be a few days before the page updates; it currently says the last run was on the 4th. Omphalographer (discusscontribs) 07:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
UnusedFiles has updated and... well, either the links don't count, or there are a lot more PDFs that I missed somehow. Wow. I'll look into this. Omphalographer (discusscontribs) 19:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Omphalographer I added all free files from Young1lim to User:MGA73/Sandbox2 and if is correct then there are 1845 unused files. --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 16:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Omphalographer I wonder if system can handle it if a page use 20k files. For example this file File:DM.H.2.Logic.20180302.pdf is unused but if you click what links here it shows my sandbox. --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 18:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have now added the files to 21 galleries in User:MGA73/Sandbox2 to User:MGA73/Sandbox22. Lets see if that does the trick. --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 09:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I checked Special:UnusedFiles today and now there are 2,295 files. Omphalographer and Dave Braunschweig as I understand it mass tagging all the files would flood the process so instead it is better to tag them in smaller numbers. Would you like to tag a few to begin with so we can see how it goes? If the files are usable and the source/author/license is good then the files could also be moved to Commons. --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 15:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we are convinced there is value in removing these images (the cleanup effort improves Wikiversity enough to be worth the time invested), then I'd like to see them tagged in themes. Perhaps start with all of the unused Robert Elliott Film School uploads, or all of the engineering homework uploads. If someone is going to the effort of tagging the images, it might be worth adding a category at the same time (Unused Film School images, Unused engineering homework images, etc.).
I don't have time to do this, but I'm not opposed if someone else is willing. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 15:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think unused files should be deleted if:

  1. They not have a valid license. There are no unlicensed files left (except perhaps newly uploaded).
  2. They have a non-free license (including NC and ND). It seems they are harder to find on wikiversity because here a link to the file also count as "in use". I noticed that some files are "in use" in pages in draft namespace or user namespace. On Wikipedia it would not be allowed to use non-free files outside main namespace.
  3. The copyright is for other reasons unsure. For example the files in Category:Files uploaded by Robert Elliott (other) are uploaded by Robert but the author is someone else.

If everything is good but the file is just not in use for some reason then the file could still be usable. And I agree that it would be a valid option just to ignore them unless someone want to spend some time to check the files.

So for now I will try to put all unused files uploaded by Elliott in a category. Then we can see how many it is and I can check if the files really are unused. --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 18:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are 95 files in Category:Files uploaded by Robert Elliott - unused. --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 19:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Forgot to mention that I checked that they are unused. --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 14:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps someone can help me out here? If the result that it is easier/better just to keep the unused files (unless they are non-free)? Or is the result that they could be deleted? If they can be deleted should the files be marked with a deletion template?

I made a list and it seems that these users are the top uploaders of orphan files (50+). Not sure if that info is relevant but now you now :-)

--MGA73 (discusscontribs) 13:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MGA73: If you tell me now to access my orphaned files, I will be happy to go through and delete them. It would probably be OK to mass delete them right now, but it would be nice to double check before doing that.Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 09:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Guy vandegrift: I made a list in User:MGA73/Sandbox. Perhaps some could go to Commons? --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 10:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed all the files except one that I did not create: File:Monopoly;_Corruption_makes_the_world_go_round.jpg -- Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 14:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Awesome! I checked my list and the problem is that I filtered the files by username and there was one other user that had the letters "Guy" in the name (User:Mr. Guye). He only uploaded one file and that file ended up on the list. --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 15:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For my uploads, I'm guessing that it's probably PDFs? The majority of these are linked to by pages, even if they're not embedded, so are probably false positives for this flag. If that's not the case let me know! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 07:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Evolution and evolvability: I added the files to User:MGA73/Sandbox and it seems you are right that it is pdf-files and that they are linked to. I noticed that some of the files are not in Category:WikiJournal files. I wonder if the files should all be there. --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 19:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MGA73 Thanks for collating those together! I've updated the name of that category and I'm going through the files using a template ({{Information_Q}}) to make sure they're all included in that cat. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As written above I created Category:Files uploaded by Robert Elliott - unused. Perhaps someone could make a conclusion to this discussion 1) if the files in this category should be deleted 2) if there are other files there should also be marked for deletion or 3) if we should just keep all the files for now (unless they are non-free or badly sourced etc. --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 15:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User pages created as part of Computer Essentials (ICNS 141) edit

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:

Omphalographer (discusscontribs) 03:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 (discusscontribs) 14:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 (discusscontribs) 21:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 (discusscontribs) 21:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you ever made contact to stewards about this issue? MathXplore (discusscontribs) 08:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invalid fair use by User:Marshallsumter edit

On Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Pervasive_copyright_violations_by_User:Marshallsumter there have been a long discussion about invalid fair use files.

According to this there are 1520 non-free files by Marshallsumter.

I think many files like File:Supraglacial stream Rainbow Glacier.jpg does not qualify as fair use.

This file is in use only in User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Glaciers/Glaciology. Other files are used in Draft-namespace.

I was thinking that since the user is blocked then the page will probably never be finished. If the pages that are not in main namespace are deleted or the files are removed from the page then the photo will (and perhaps many other) will be orphan.

Could that be a way to try to fix at least some of the bad files? --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 17:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think most of those files are on this list with 471 files User:MGA73/OrphanNon-free. So if the list is correct we could delete those files. --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 18:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are many files and userspace pages by Marshallsumter and Kizer, who hasn't edited in 15 years. I'll make a calendar reminder to delete them in two weeks and I'll check this thread again to see if anyone responds. Silence is approval, etc. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would support the removal of most of the pages created and/or primarily edited by Marshallsumter, but, as a matter of procedure, can you prepare a list of the pages you intend to delete? Omphalographer (discusscontribs) 20:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that is a good idea. I tried to copy {{list subpages|Marshallsumter|User}} to my sandbox and noticed that there are some strangely named talk pages. I think that some pages and their talk pages were separated by a mistake. For example:
The difference is the 2 in "Radiation_astronomy2/".
If the pages are to be deleted it may not be a big deal but it would be easier to find out if the talk page were moved so it had the same name as the non-talk page.
Also I wonder if there are other pages that were incorrectly moved. Does anyone have a good way to find talk pages without a matching page? --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 13:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of MS-pages edit

MS has 351 subpages and I'm assuming that all should be deleted, as he is blocked and will not work on them and no one else will as well:
Marshallsumert subpages - delete
  • User:Marshallsumter/Astronomy
  • User:Marshallsumter/Coronal cloud
  • User:Marshallsumter/Course:Mathematical modeling
  • User:Marshallsumter/Courses
  • User:Marshallsumter/Dominance in physics
  • User:Marshallsumter/Dominant group
  • User:Marshallsumter/Dominant group/Attribution and copyright
  • User:Marshallsumter/Dominant group/Biology/Term test
  • User:Marshallsumter/Dominant group/Classes
  • User:Marshallsumter/Dominant group/Genus differentia definition
  • User:Marshallsumter/Dominant group/Language
  • User:Marshallsumter/Dominant group/Lexical definition
  • User:Marshallsumter/Dominant group/Origin
  • User:Marshallsumter/Dominant group/Rigorous definition
  • User:Marshallsumter/Dominant group/Sociology/Term test
  • User:Marshallsumter/Dominant group/Synonymous definition
  • User:Marshallsumter/Dominant group/Theoretical definition
  • User:Marshallsumter/Dominant group (chemistry)
  • User:Marshallsumter/Dominant group (economics)
  • User:Marshallsumter/Dominant group (geography)
  • User:Marshallsumter/Dominant group (psychology)
  • User:Marshallsumter/Dominant group (religion)
  • User:Marshallsumter/Early telescope
  • User:Marshallsumter/Mathematical astronomy
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Absorptions
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Absorptions/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Acoustics
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Acoustics/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Active galactic nuclei
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Active galactic nuclei/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Activities
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Aerometeors
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Aerometeors/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Aircraft
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Alloys
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Alloys/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Alpha particles
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Alpha particles/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Asteroids
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Asteroids/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Astrometry
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Astronomy
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Astronomy/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Astrophysics
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Atmospheres
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Atomics
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Atomics/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Backgrounds
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Balloons
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Bands
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Baryons
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Baryons/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Beta particles
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Beta particles/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Blacks
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Blues
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Blues/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Centimeters
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Chemicals
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Chemistry
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Chemistry/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Clocks
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Clouds
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Clouds/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Colors
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Colors/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Comets
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Comets/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Compounds
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Continua
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Cosmic rays/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Courses
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Courses/Principles
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Courses/Principles/Final quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Courses/Principles/Hourly 1
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Courses/Principles/Hourly 2
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Courses/Principles/Hourly 3
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Courses/Principles/Midterm quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Courses/Principles/Syllabus
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Courses/Principles/Syllabus/Fall
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Courses/Principles/Syllabus/Spring
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Craters
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Cryometeors
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Cryometeors/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Cyans
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Cyans/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Detectors
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Detectors/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Diffractions
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Distillations
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Distributionals
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Earth
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Electromagnetics
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Electromagnetics/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Electrons
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Electrons/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Emissions
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Empiricisms
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Empiricisms/Laboratory
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Empiricisms/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Entities
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Entities/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Fieries
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Fieries/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/First X-ray source in Andromeda
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/First X-ray source in Antlia
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/First X-ray source in Apus
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/First X-ray source in Aquarius
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/First X-ray source in Centaurus
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/First astronomical X-ray source/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/First astronomical sources/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/First blue source in Boötes
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/First cyan source in Caelum
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/First gamma-ray source in Scutum
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/First gamma-ray source in Triangulum Australe
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/First green source in Tucana
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/First infrared source in Crux
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/First microwave source in Cepheus
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/First neutron source in Volans
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/First orange source in Cancer
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/First positron source in Phoenix
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/First radio source in Pisces
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/First red source in Canis Major
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/First submillimeter source in Carina
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/First superluminal source in Indus
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/First ultraviolet source in Sagittarius
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/First violet source in Leo
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/First yellow source in Aquila
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Fluorescences
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Galaxies
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Galaxies/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Galaxy clusters
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Galaxy clusters/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Gamma rays
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Gamma rays/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Geography
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Geography/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Gravitationals
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Gravitationals/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Greens
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Greens/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Hadrons
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Hadrons/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/High-velocity galaxies
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/High-velocity galaxies/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/History
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/History/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Holes
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Hydrometeors
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Hydrometeors/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Hypervelocity stars
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Hypervelocity stars/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Infrareds
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Infrareds/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Intensities
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Intergalactic medium
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Intergalactic medium/Laboratory
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Intergalactic medium/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Kuiper belts
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Kuiper belts/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Laboratories
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Lectures
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Lessons/First blue source in Boötes
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Lightnings
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Lightnings/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Lithometeors
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Lithometeors/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Luminescences
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Magnetism
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Materials
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Mathematics
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Mathematics/Problem set
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Mathematics/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Mesons
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Mesons/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Meteoritic irons
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Meteoroids
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Meteoroids/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Meteors/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Micrometeorites
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Microwaves
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Microwaves/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Millimeters
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Millimeters/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Minerals
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Minerals/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Molecules
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Molecules/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Motion
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Muons
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Muons/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Nebulas
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Nebulas/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Neutrals
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Neutrals/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Neutrinos
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Neutrinos/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Neutrons/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Objects
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Objects/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Oort clouds
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Oort clouds/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Opticals
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Opticals/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Oranges
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Oranges/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Outlines
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Particles
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Particles/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Planets
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Planets/Classicals
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Planets/Classicals/Aion
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Planets/Classicals/Aion/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Planets/Classicals/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Planets/Classicals/Seven Classical Planets
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Planets/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Planets/Sciences
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Plasmas
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Plasmas/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Polarizations
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Positrons
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1/Positrons/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Problem set
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Protons
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Protons/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Radars
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Radars/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Radios
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Radios/Lessons
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Radios/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Reds
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Reds/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Reflections
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Refractions
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Rocketry
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Rocks
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Rocks/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Satellites
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Satellites/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Scattered disks
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Scattered disks/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Scatterings
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Showers
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Showers/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Sounding rockets
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Sources
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Sources/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Spallations
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Spatials
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Spectrals
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Spectrographs
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Spectrometers
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Spectroscopy
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Spectroscopy/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Standard candles
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Standard candles/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Stars
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Stars/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Subatomics
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Subatomics/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Submillimeters
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Submillimeters/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Sun-synchronous
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Superluminals
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Superluminals/Problems
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Superluminals/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Syllabus/Spring
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Synchrotrons
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Synchrotrons/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Tauons
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Tauons/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Telescopes
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Telescopes/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Temporals
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Theory
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Theory/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Topics
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Transductions
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Transformations
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Transmissivity
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Transmutations
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Ultraviolets
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Ultraviolets/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Violets
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Violets/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Visuals
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Visuals/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Volcanoes
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Wavelength shifts
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/X-rays
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/X-rays/Course
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/X-rays/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Yellows
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2/Yellows/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Radiative dynamo
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Coals
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Coals/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Glaciers
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Glaciers/Astroglaciology
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Glaciers/Astroglaciology/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Glaciers/Glaciology
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Glaciers/Glaciology/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Glaciers/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Ice sheets
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Ice sheets/Enceladus
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Ice sheets/Enceladus/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Ice sheets/Europa
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Ice sheets/Europa/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Meteorites
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Meteorites/Laboratory
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Meteorites/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Micrometeorites
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Rocky objects
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Rocky objects/Ariel
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Rocky objects/Asteroids
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Rocky objects/Asteroids/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Rocky objects/Astronomy
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Rocky objects/Astronomy/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Rocky objects/Callisto
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Rocky objects/Ceres
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Rocky objects/Dione
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Rocky objects/Earth
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Rocky objects/Earth/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Rocky objects/Ganymede
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Rocky objects/Ganymede/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Rocky objects/Io
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Rocky objects/Mercury
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Rocky objects/Mercury/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Rocky objects/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Rocky objects/Vesta
  • User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Sediments
  • User:Marshallsumter/Sources/Astronomy
  • User:Marshallsumter/Sources/Astronomy/Quiz
  • User:Marshallsumter/Sun as an X-ray source
  • User:Marshallsumter/Test of term
  • User:Marshallsumter/Theoretical astronomy
  • User:Marshallsumter/Theory of definition
  • User:Marshallsumter/X-ray classification of stars
  • User:Marshallsumter/phosphate reaction
  • User:Marshallsumter/sandbox
  • User:Marshallsumter/sandbox/Main Page Portal

List of Kizer-pages edit

Kizer has a more manageable 38:
Kizer subpages
  • User:Kizer/Web Page
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Dreamweaver
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Dreamweaver/BG
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Dreamweaver/Flashbutton
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Dreamweaver/Flashmovie
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Dreamweaver/General
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Dreamweaver/Images
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Dreamweaver/Layouts
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Dreamweaver/Project1
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Dreamweaver/Project2
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Dreamweaver/Project2 Party Planners Site
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Dreamweaver/Project3
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Dreamweaver/Project 2
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Dreamweaver/Project 3
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Dreamweaver/links
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Dreamweaver/table
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Fireworks
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Fireworks/Effects
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Fireworks/Fade
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Fireworks/Grayscale
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Fireworks/Magic
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Fireworks/Project2
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Fireworks/Project3
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Fireworks/Project 2
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Fireworks/Project 3
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Fireworks/fade
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Fireworks/screenshot
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Flash
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Flash/Fade
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Flash/General
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Flash/Mask
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Flash/Morph
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Flash/Project 1
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Flash/Project 2
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Flash/Project 3
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Flash/Project 4
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Flash/Tween
  • User:Kizer/Web Page/Flash/Zoom

Discussion continued edit

The latter seem like they can all be deleted. I'm open to anyone thinking these userspace drafts should stay. —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kizer's "Web Page" project was moved to userspace as the result of a fairly recent deletion discussion, cf. Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion/Archives/18#Web Page and subpages. Same goes for much of Marshallsumter's userspace content; there's also some non-draft pages in his user space like User:Marshallsumter/Deletion concerns, as well as the recently moved User:Marshallsumter/Dedicated Programming Compiler and User:Marshallsumter/Resources favored by women, which should probably be kept. Omphalographer (discusscontribs) 21:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just checked all Kizer's pages. None of them have been edited since they were moved. Except a category was removed because user pages are not supposed to be in the main categories. That tells me it is very unlikely someone would suddenly edit the pages. Besides if the programs are 15 years old it is very unlikely someone still uses those programs and/or the layout of the programs are still the same. So the pages are highly outdated. --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 08:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also checked how often User:Kizer/Web_Page was viewed with and it seems it was not viewed from 2015 to December 2022 and then it was viewed when the DR started. My quess it we will see the same if we check all the sub pages. --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 09:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Based on my history of interactions and also that I am the blocking custodian / bureaucrat on MS, I won't vote or participate in this discussion. But if the Community agrees to delete these files, I can have MaintenanceBot do the work. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 21:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think there's a consensus to mass-delete Kizer's pages and not MS's. Am I correct? —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I personally think both sets could be deleted. I just did not check the pages of MS because I wanted to see if Kizer's pages could be deleted first. MS is blocked so there is almost no chance the pages will ever be completed. However, there are a few of MS' pages that I think someone would like to keep. --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 10:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I sorted the files in lists. If someone would like to hold on to some of the files perhaps they could just move them down to the keep section? --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 11:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are no problematic files in the pages of MS that are now in the (perhaps) keep section. So if they are kept it will not reduce the number of non-free files getting orphan and easy to delete. So I see no problm keeping those pages and just deleting the rest. --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 06:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry to bother you User:Omphalographer but perhaps you could check the list and either move the pages you would like to keep or write a "Ok now"? In case any pages with non-free files are to be kept I think we should remove the non-free files as long as the page is not final. But I would rather not spend time on that if the page can be deleted instead. --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 06:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Sorry to bother you but the discussion above is halted.

Justin (koavf) and Omphalographer, as written above I updated the list and moved the few pages of MS that should (perhaps) be kept. So I think that all the remaing pages of both MS and Kizer can be deleted. Could you have a look and let us know if there are any pages left that you would like to keep or if you agree they can be deleted?

Dave Braunschweig, I know you do not want to participate in the discussion so I do not expect a "just delete" from you but IF there are any pages you would like to keep for some reason you now have a chance to say keep to those.

If this DR is closed it should make it easy to delete a lot of non-free files and that would make it easier to clean up invalid fair-use files. So I hope you can find a little time to give an answer.

Thanks a million! --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 16:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dave Braunschweig: According to another user in this discussion, "MS has 351 subpages and I'm assuming that all should be deleted, as he is blocked and will not work on them and no one else will as well" I'm not familiar with the case or with that particular user, but isn't it possible to block someone only from uploading files rather than completely? They seem to have made quite a few legitimate contributions so at face value it seems a shame that they're blocked and have no opportunity to finish what they've started. Wikiversity has relatively few active, regular editors. AP295 (discusscontribs) 18:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think there's any technical means available to block a user from uploading files without blocking them from editing in general. In any case, as a Wikiversity editor since 2011 and a former custodian, Marshall had no real excuse for his failure to understand and comply with project copyright policies.
As far as the content of these resources is concerned, I'm not sure that any of the pages he created has any meaningful educational value to preserve. For some background on the situation, I'd recommend reading over w:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive720#User:Marshallsumter disrupting Wikipedia for "research" purposes. and w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/User:Marshallsumter Incident Article Fix-up Coordination Page - many of the pages Marshall created on Wikiversity were substantially similar to those which were removed from Wikipedia, and many of the same comments about the content apply here.
Omphalographer (discusscontribs) 20:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't have a very deep look, it just seemed like they had done a lot of editing over several years. At any rate, there would be no technical obstacle to implementing such a feature, so it surprises me that the feature does not exist. AP295 (discusscontribs) 20:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Invalid use of non-free files is a violation of wmf:Resolution:Licensing_policy and the suggestion to delete the unfinished pages is a way to clean up many of the non-free files in an easy way. So I hope we can agree to delete the pages (and files) to finally have some real progress in the cleanup that started more than a year ago in Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Pervasive_copyright_violations_by_User:Marshallsumter.
Users that violate policy after a warning should not be unblocked unless they confirm they understand policy, will follow it and help clean up own mess. --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 18:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't mean to hold up the RfD, so don't mind me. I only feel the indefinite block could be used a bit less often in general. Aside from very exceptional cases, there's probably little harm in issuing a block that expires in a couple years or thereabouts rather than blocking a user in perpetuity. (Or I suppose a block on uploading, if that's the issue.) Copyright violation is perhaps exceptional due to its legal implications, yet one would be hard pressed to argue that a user should receive an indefinite block instead of, say, a five year block for general "behavioral issues" or the quality of their contributions alone. An indefinite block merely on grounds that a user allegedly hasn't made useful or cooperative contributions seems to all but assure the recipient will never usefully contribute. One gets the sense that it's often issued more to tie up loose ends rather than with corrective intent. Again, this is a general observation and not (necessarily) a comment on this case in particular. AP295 (discusscontribs) 08:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! I would not mind if the block was changed to a time limited block. But that is another discussion :-) I hope this DR can now be closed so the pages and the oprhan files can be deleted. --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 19:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One possible option to block a user from uploading files without blocking them from editing in general is to use the uploader user group (See b:Wikibooks:Uploaders for example). By only allowing uploads from uploaders, users can be blocked from uploading files without blocking them from editing. According to Special:ListGroupRights, Wikiversity does not have uploaders, so we need another community agreement to install such user group. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 08:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should the matching files be marked for deletion seperately like File:01 darkflight.jpg for example? I noticed that User:Omphalographer nominated a few disputed non-free files like File:RockClassif-A.gif that way. I can easily mark all the files on User:MGA73/OrphanNon-free if that is what it takes. --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 09:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion is OK with me. Having said that, I don't yet see the need for deleting these pages. Compared with Wikipedia, Wikiversity is a small wiki. Does anybody know the monetary cost of keeping all the megabytes is storage? Are there other costs (such as cluttering category lists?). Also, can a bot do these deletions? It takes about dozen seconds for me to delete a page. Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 03:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The costs of the hosting is a fraction of a rounding error. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why are the Marshallsumter user subpages (not files) being deleted? Are they copyright violations? Are they causing any problems? The deletion of them does not save any storage; it merely hides them from view, isn't it? Sure, as long as he is blocked, he will be unable to edit them, but others can have a look at what he created and perhaps be inspired in some way? --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 19:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am a strong supporter of not deleting harmless pages in userspace. Wikiversity is different from other wikis. Our philosophy is learn by doing. Inevitably that means making mistakes. And they say learning is a lifelong process. We allow short stories on Wikiversity, and I am OK with putting them in userspace if they serve no educational value to others. But any draft a child makes is of value to that child. How long should that child's page be allowed in that userspace? As long as the child is still learning. We at Wikiversity are too busy to monitor when a person has stopped learning. All we need are bots to remove category statements and other links that place that story on lists that others might need to read. Having said that, we should place limits on how many pages a person can write. Instead of trying to establish a page count, I suggest we just use common sense. I think Marshallsumter has reached his limit. --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 20:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many of these pages are, at best, borderline copyright violations. Many of the resources Marshallsumter created were assembled by searching for scientific papers related to a topic, then assembling a sort of a textual collage of quotes from those papers; this sort of indiscriminate use of quotes to constitute the majority of a work, rather than to support it or as a subject for commentary, exceeds the limits of what is acceptable under fair use. An example of this use can be seen at User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Micrometeorites, where almost the entire text of the page is made up of quotes from four papers. Omphalographer (discusscontribs) 20:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. But e.g. User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Coals does not seem to suffer from this problem and does not seem to be a copyright violation? At least, it is sourced from fairly many sources and contains multiple sentences that are not direct quotes. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 20:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not much better; much of the seemingly original content in that resource is actually closely paraphrased from sources. Compare the section User:Marshallsumter/Rocks/Coals#Abelsonite to the cited article doi:10.1016/0146-6380(89)90038-7, for instance:
Original: Abelsonite displays a secondary mode of occurrence, occurring in vugs, fractures, and along bedding lamina...
Paraphrase: Abelsonite is a secondary mineral that formed in fractures, vugs, and bedding planes of oil shale.
Original: So far as it is known to the authors, abelsonite is the only known crystalline geoporphyrin. Almost all other geoporphyrins exist as a series of methylene homologues, often spanning a large range of carbon numbers.
Paraphrase: In 1989, abelsonite was the only known geoporphyrin to have a crystalline structure. Most geoporphyrins occur as a series of homologues spanning a large range of carbon numbers.
While Wikiversity does not currently have guidelines on paraphrasing, Wikipedia's w:Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing describes some of the copyright issues inherent to the practice and is applicable here. Omphalographer (discusscontribs) 21:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But is the paraphrasing really too close? Since, if the information is to be sourced from the source, there has to be some tight relationship. Thus, if e.g. "abelsonite was the only known geoporphyrin to have a crystalline structure", then one has to say it in one way or another, and one has to invoke "abelsonite", "geoporphyrin" and "crystalline". As per Wikisource: Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, "[...] the fundamental axiom of copyright law that no one may copyright facts or ideas".
The linked Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing is an explanatory essay and I have no idea to what extent it has been vetted to be meaningful and accurate. Its statement "Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words, adding inline citations as required by the sourcing policy" makes no sense to me: editors should not necessarily summarize since summarization is a process of omitting detail and an article author does not necessarily want to omit detail found in the source. Having a more serious source than "Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing" would be worthwhile. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 08:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My problem with fussing over Marshallsumber's subpages is that it detracts from bigger issues. At first glance, the top page Minerals looks like a quality resource that the casual reader will be tempted to look into. I don't have time to carefully look at those subpages, but my guess is that whoever examines them will never visit Wikiversity again. In contrast, almost nobody will look at a subpage in MS's userspace.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 19:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Isn't that an argument to leave Marshallsumber's subpages well alone and focus on what is really important instead, viz the mainspace? --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 19:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason for this deletion request is that many files were fair use and only used in userpages. If the pages were deleted the files would be orphan and then they would show up at Special:UnusedFiles and be easier to spot. While waiting for the DR to be closes I have made User:MGA73/OrphanNon-free and that could be used to find the files. --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 20:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There seems to be an easier plan, requiring no deletion of user space subpages: delete from Wikiversity all image files uploaded by Marshallsumter. Rationale: Marshallsumter showed a systematic pattern of misinterpretation of fair use (I make no such claim, but this is what I gathered from discussions), and instead of carefully considering each his file on a case by case basis, it seems justifiable to proceed with a summary deletion. And this seems to be the intent anyway? --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 10:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion/Archives/16#Main Page "Lectures", it seems that mainspace pages by Marshall Sumter were proposed for deletion in 2018 and the deletion was rejected. From what I understand, many of the Marshall Sumter user space subpages were originally in the mainspace and were subject to the linked deletion debate. The present proposal to delete the Marshall Sumter user space subpages seems to be a proposal to change the 2018 decision. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 07:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the ideal would be to check all 1500 files one by one to check if the file is free or non-free and if non-free to check if it meets the requirements for fair use. Deleting all the files only used outside mainspace is my idea of a shortcut to get rid of a third of the files.
About moving files from mainspace to userspace I think the idea in the first deletion request was that the pages were not completed so they were moved to userspace to see if Marshallsumter or someone else would finish the pages. If the pages are not edited for several years there is no reason to think that someone will suddenly finish them especially not when Marshallsumter is blocked. That combined with the wish to get rid of non-free files is the reason for the second deletion request. --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 09:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
About not completed, does it match policy, and if so, which one? In general, pages in user space are usually not completed in any sense, and users often stop editing and leave their pages "not completed". Using the reasoning above, it would need to be a practice in Wikiversity to regularly delete user space subpages with the "will not be completed" rationale. Is there precendent of such a practice? I for one find the user subpages by Marshall interesting in their design and method of execution and do not mind that they will not be "completed". --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 10:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dan Polansky. As mentoned the reason for the DR was a short cut to get rid of lots of bad fair use files. Personally I do not care much about what users have in their user space as long as it is not illegal or harmful. --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 15:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(outdent) Since files are not being deleted as "only used outside of mainspace", the rationale for deletion that you have in mind no longer applies, right? Since, we have found a method of deleting the problematic files without deleting the user space. And since there is no other valid rationale for deleting these user pages, they should stay, right? --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 07:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you mean that the pages in "perhaps keep" are free from such issues? If not, then the list needs to be fixed. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 08:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MathXplore. Not sure if the comment is for me or not. But the "perhaps keep" does not include any fair use images. --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 15:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(off topic) Does pages like Portal:Complex Systems Digital Campus/E-Laboratory on complex computational ecosystems/Members of the ECCE e-lab qualify for use of fair use images? --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 15:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Proof for NP unequal P by Thomas Käfer edit

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

PhotoTalks edit

Discussion about PhotoTalks is now irrelevant. See discussion about Student Projects/PhotoTalks

Delete: almost nothing to learn from here; no clear subject; seems to be a small collection of random photos associated with random statements about them and questions. I can imagine e.g. page "Sociology - interpreting photographs" or something of the sort executed in the direction/style of PhotoTalks, but here: 1) there are only 4 images; 2) there is no shared domain/topic for the images; 3) the statements and questions associated with the images do not seem particularly educational, e.g. for a photo of Egyptian pyramids, the questions are "Who built these pyramids? Where do they come from? Where are they gone to? Will they be back?"; 4) one could expand this kind of material indefinitely; that is, if one accepts this page as valid Wikiversity content, this opens the door to volumes of pages of very little value or no value. (No objections to moving to user subpage.) --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 06:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Make it a subpage of Photographic Composition. Be sure to add an explanation and a link on the top page. If you don't like the captions, edit them. If you don't like the photos, explain how they could have been better. My personal opinion is that this is an educational wiki, and that education begins in childhood. Maybe a child made these photos. We don't have time to decide whether something is of poor quality because it is a first attempt, or if it was created by a person with no hope of improving. And even if the person has no hope of improving, we block disruptors, not people who are failing to make progress.

When I first came to this wiki 11 years ago, my first "mentor" helped me with page creation and editing. After a few back-and-forth messages, he invited me to see one of his pages. It was in mainspace and I was shocked by the low quality; it looked like something a child would write. It turns out that he was a child. He stayed on Wikiversity, growing up on here, so to speak. He is now a Custodian or Administrator on three wikis.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 13:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But it does not really belong to "Photographic Composition" because it is not about photographic composition: one does not learn how to make photographs. I have no objection to the particular photos per se; I have an issue with the concept. The concept is: put together 4 photos, do a quick mental association from the photos to sentences/questions and be done with it. No scope is provided (which photos should be there? from what field domain?) Etc.
This nomination really is not personal at all; it is about the material nominated and its suitability for consumption by others to learn something. As per WV:Deletion, "Resources may be eligible for proposed deletion when education objectives and learning outcomes are scarce, and objections to deletion are unlikely". I submit that "learning outcomes are scarce" is the case, and I do not see how this could be remedied.
I do recognize your kindness, and it is to be appreciated. However, the problem I have with the above reasoning (everyone was a child at some point; Wikiversity is also for children) is that it provides a plan for making Wikiversity an accumulation of analogues of child-grade writeups, and that cannot be the objective. The project's keeping subpar pages in user subspace is more than kind enough, in my view. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 14:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Student Projects/PhotoTalks edit

Since there is consensus (between two editors) that PhotoTalks does not belong at the top of mainspace, it has been moved to Student Projects/PhotoTalks--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 03:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fresh start:

Keep as subpage of Student Projects--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 03:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I still think the page is not for mainspace but for userspace, following the model of what has been done recently with other subpar pages: it is not something that can reasonably be called a "student project", to my mind, and the reader learns nothing or almost nothing from reading it. A project, as a minimum, has an assignment and its solution; I see no assignment or scope statement on the page. If this kind of subpar material is to be salvaged as "Student Project" and kept in the mainspace, then I think too many writeups can be called a "student project" and so salvaged. What speaks against my proposal is e.g. page Student Projects/Tiger, but this counter-argument is weak: this could mean Tiger is for userspace as well. I think the whole thing should be renamed from "Student Projects" to "Student writeups", "Student writings", "Student writing practice" or the like, unless it is really for "projects".
As long as "Student Projects"/"Student writeup" exists, I think there should still be some minimum requirements on it. E.g. Student Projects/Neuron at least contains a coherent set of statements on a well defined subject, on which the reader can practice reviewing skills and test their knowledge. Thus, I see an at least superficially plausible rationale for having "Student writeups/Neuron" in the mainspace, but not for Student Projects/PhotoTalks. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 07:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two comments:
  1. Renaming Student Projects to Student writeup is not a bad idea. The problem is that as a custodian, I cannot automatically move that many subpages.
  2. We are discussing the relative merits of two mediocre pages on Wikiversity. That is a waste of time. Of course I agree that there needs to be limits on what goes underneath Student Projects. A simple criterion is anything annoying; that would include: Too long, too short, too likely to bring in too many complaints (especially from people on other wikis.) For me it is less annoying to place a weak article underneath Student Projects than it is to endlessly discuss what to do with it. We get people who want an almost endless stream of short pages; that can't be allowed. We have people who write endless streams of prose on politics or some fringe scientific theory, or long collections of anything. I see reasons to ask those people to stop. But I simply don't have time to judge every mediocre page we have on Wikiversity. And when I delete without fully vetting each deletion, I end up having to undelete.Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 10:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To save your time and attention (thanks again for doing all the deletion cleanup work in Wikiversity! I don't see other admins handling so many deletions), we may stop the discussion now and see whether someone else chimes in and takes a position. If no one chimes in a week or month or whatever the conventional discussion period is, it will be "no consensus for deletion, 1:1". I think my position is based on WV:Deletion guideline, but it is only a guideline (not a policy) anyway. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 10:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
About the renaming: if you support the proposal, I would take it to Colloquium and in case of consensus I would rename the pages myself. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 10:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dan Polansky: We all know about edit-conflicts. You and I are experiencing a "discussion-conflict" by simultaneously making two conciliatory statements on in different places on the same page. If you look above, I put offered to delete with a one week delay, while you made a similar offer to pause the discussion right here. Your statement came first, but I wrote mine before seeing yours. And, yes, we need a pause in order to reach a reliably accurate Wikiversity consensus. Regarding your offer to rename all the subpages in Student Projects: Consider renaming only the subpages that are of high quality. That might be far less work.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 15:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there are no objections, I would like to archive all talk about Student Projects/Phototalks as closed without consensus to delete (i.e. we are keeping it in its current location.) Requests to renew this discussion will be "in order" at any time.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 14:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete per speedy criteria #1: Why on earth does anyone want to keep this page? Some new user start a random page 8 years ago and never made any edits since then? Is there any learning or any research to get from this? I really can't see anything in Wikiversity:What is Wikiversity? that can justify to keep pages like this. (I know I'm not really active outside File namespace but I simply could not help it) --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 16:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • On a time note: are there any Wikiversity customs/guidelines about for how long a RFD discussion is open? In the English Wiktionary, there was a guideline says that a RFD discussion should be open for at least a week, and usually for a month. Having a week as an absolute minimum seems very reasonable to me. Having it usually open for two weeks or a month seems reasonable as well, given the low RFD discussion participation. A key part of the purpose of a RFD discussion is to collect input; if no input were required and there was a hurry, we would use speedy deletion (one person being the nominator, another deleting the page, thus ensuring the 4-eye principle). --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 08:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikisphere edit

This is a confusing jumble of content for which learning outcomes are scarce (WV:Deletion); a hard to characterize chaos, with unclear relevance of the parts to the whole. I propose one of the following actions:

1) Delete. Perhaps not ideal since then non-admins will no longer be able to view the page, which can be seen as some kind of historical discussion, given the number of participants. But I see deletion as justified anyway, since it is not even a discussion proper; it is not clear who posted what, etc.

2) Move to user subpage of User:Dionysios, the original creator of the page.

3) At least move to Wikiversity:Wikisphere.

From the revision history, this was tagged for deletion in 2014, and then untagged.

I checked Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikisphere to see the impact on pages linking to it, and it seems tolerable.

I support all three actions, in the preference order 1 > 2 > 3.

--Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 10:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I now found some of the content was copied from elsewhere; one small discussion was copied from Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/October 2006. Thus, the page Wikisphere gives the impression more people edited the page than they really did; e.g. Andrew massyn and Rayc did not edit the page. Almost all edits to the Wikisphere page seem to have been done by Dionysios. This reinforces my view that option 1 is preferable and that nothing is lost by deleting the page or moving it to user space. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 11:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have a counter-proposal: Keep everything as it is, because the old-timers might want to refer to the old rules as they contemplate proposals by the young Turks. I suggest we create a new page with a title like Wikiversity:Deletion Convention 2024. Labeling the year is essential because we now know that all such decisions have a shelf-life. I know for a fact that User:MathXplore does not like to delete policy statements until a new policy has been established. Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 16:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The deletion proposal is based on guideline WV:Deletions, which I never edited. I edited WV:Verifiability in a way that keeps the core of what that page had; AFAICS, WV:Verifiability is not a meaningful input into this proposal since I do not charge statements to lack verification but rather that the Wikisphere page is, put simply but rudely, worthless and very confusing to boot. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 16:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that this resource should not be placed in the mainspace. It seems to be a proposal for a WikiProject rather than an educational resource. I understand that the mainspace is for educational materials. According to the current categorization of this page, this page is a discussion venue (I don't know how it is related to Category:Time). In other words, it doesn't belong to an academic subject. On the other hand, I don't think this is harmful to require deletion of all revisions, so moving to another namespace seems to be reasonable for me. If this page is going to be moved to the project namespace, I suggest adding {{historical}} to reduce confusion. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 01:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Maybe not directly related to this RFD but please allow me to reply to the mention above) "not like to delete policy statements until a new policy has been established" is not only my personal preference but also generally required at many Wikimedia sister projects. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 01:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is off-topic, but even what remained in Wikiversity:Verifiability after my edits is something hardly anyone takes seriously. Thus, information stated in Wikiversity pages is not either "already been published by a reliable source" or "has been produced by scholarly research performed at Wikiversity", unless we consider all those low-quality writeups to be "scholarly research performed at Wikiversity". Even now, Wikiversity:Verifiability is not fit for purpose, and demoting it from a policy status, into which it did not get through any transparent process, is a very desirable thing unless we want to live in an Orwellistan in which policies are not policies and do not even remotely resemble the actual practice and incoherence and contradictions rule the day. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 07:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On substance: Originally, I thought moving the page to Wiktionary space was a pretty ok idea, but I no longer think so. Since, I realized the page was not really a discussion but merely looked like it could be one based on a very superficial impression: the author just copied parts of discussions that took place elsewhere. The categorization of this page as a discussion is misplaced/misleading. This can be verified from the revision history of the page. It is confirmed on the page itself, where it says "This Page began as a Copy of Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/October 2006." The oldest revision of the page is this, and it does look like a copy of Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/October 2006. I find the whole idea of copying a discussion, and then editing it willy-nilly while leaving the editor signatures there, without using quotation marks to make it very clear these are quotations and not original discussion contributions, mildly inappropriate, to be frank. Either delete, or move to user space. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 08:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ukulele edit

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."

--Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 16:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)TCM 17:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no objection -- feel free to delete. As I see it, there is nothing in Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion that cannot be deleted.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 17:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]